[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 654-681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31397]



[[Page 653]]

Vol. 82

Tuesday,

No. 1

January 3, 2017

Part III





Equal Employment Opportunity Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





29 CFR Part 1614





Affirmative Action for Individuals With Disabilities in Federal 
Employment; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 2017 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 654]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 1614

RIN 3046-AA94


Affirmative Action for Individuals With Disabilities in Federal 
Employment

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or 
Commission) is issuing its final rule to amend the regulations that 
require federal agencies to engage in affirmative action for 
individuals with disabilities. These changes clarify the obligations 
that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 imposes on federal agencies, as 
employers, that are over and above the obligation not to discriminate 
on the basis of disability. The regulation does not apply to the 
private sector or to state or local governments.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule will be applicable on March 6, 
2017.
    Applicability date: The applicability date for this final rule 
shall be January 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal 
Counsel, (202) 663-4665, or Aaron Konopasky, Senior Attorney-Advisor, 
(202) 663-4127 (voice), or (202) 663-7026 (TTY), Office of Legal 
Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (These are not 
toll free numbers.) Requests for this document in an alternative format 
should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs 
at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY). (These are not toll 
free numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    This final rule (Final Rule or Rule) amends 29 CFR 1614.203 to 
clarify the affirmative action obligations that Section 501 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 501) \1\ imposes on federal 
agencies \2\ as employers. The Rule codifies a variety of obligations 
currently placed on federal agencies by management directives and 
Executive Orders. It also adds two substantive affirmative action 
requirements. First, the Rule requires agencies to take specific steps 
that are reasonably designed to gradually increase the number of 
employees who have a disability as defined under Section 501, and the 
number of employees who have a ``targeted disability,'' which is 
defined for purposes of this Rule to mean a disability that is either 
designated as ``targeted disability or health condition'' on the Office 
of Personnel Management's (OPM's) Standard Form 256 (SF-256),\3\ or 
that falls under one of the first 12 categories of disability listed in 
Part A of Question 5 of the EEOC's Demographic Information on 
Applicants form (Applicant Flow Form),\4\ until they meet specific 
goals set by the EEOC. This is consistent with the approach taken by 
the Department of Labor''s Office of Federal Contract Compliance 
Programs in regulations issued to implement the obligation of federal 
contractors to engage in affirmative action for individuals with 
disabilities pursuant to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
29 U.S.C. 793 (Section 503).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 29 U.S.C. 791.
    \2\ Section 501 applies to ``each department, agency, and 
instrumentality (including the United States Postal Service and the 
Postal Regulatory Commission) in the executive branch and the 
Smithsonian Institution.'' 29 U.S.C. 791(b). For convenience, this 
Notice uses the term ``federal agency'' or ``agency'' to mean any 
federal entity covered by Section 501.
    \3\ Office of Pers. Mgmt., Standard Form 256 (revised Aug., 
2016), https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf256.pdf [hereinafter SF-
256]. Targeted disabilities include: developmental disabilities, for 
example, autism spectrum disorder; traumatic brain injuries; 
deafness or serious difficulty hearing, benefiting from, for 
example, American Sign Language; blindness or serious difficulty 
seeing even when wearing glasses; missing extremities (arm, leg, 
hand and/or foot); significant mobility impairments, benefitting 
from the utilization of a wheelchair, scooter, walker, leg brace(s) 
and/or other supports; partial or complete paralysis (any cause); 
epilepsy and other seizure disorders; intellectual disabilities; 
psychiatric disabilities; dwarfism; and significant disfigurement, 
for example, disfigurements caused by burns, wounds, accidents, or 
congenital disorders.
    \4\ EEOC, Demographic Information on Applicants (n.d.), https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/upload/Applicant_Tracking_Form_2-19-2014-2.pdf 
[hereinafter Applicant Flow Form]. The first 12 categories of 
disability listed in Part A of question 5 are: Deaf or serious 
difficulty hearing; blind or serious difficulty seeing even when 
wearing glasses; missing an arm, leg, hand, or foot; partial or 
complete paralysis (any cause); significant disfigurement (for 
example, severe disfigurements caused by burns, wounds, accidents, 
or congenital disorders); significant mobility impairment (for 
example, uses a wheelchair, scooter, walker or uses a leg brace to 
walk); significant psychiatric disorder (for example, bipolar 
disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD or major depression); intellectual 
disability (formerly described as mental retardation); developmental 
disability (for example, cerebral palsy or autism spectrum 
disorder); traumatic brain injury; dwarfism; and epilepsy or other 
seizure disorder.
    \5\ See 41 CFR pt. 60-741.45(a) (establishing a 7% utilization 
goal for employment of qualified individuals with disabilities for 
the contractor's entire workforce or each job group in the 
contractor's workforce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Rule requires agencies to provide personal assistance 
services (PAS) to employees who, because of targeted disabilities, 
require such assistance in order to be at work or participate in work-
related travel. PAS are services that help individuals with 
disabilities perform activities of daily living, including, for 
example, assistance with removing and putting on clothing, eating, and 
using the restroom. Such services do not, however, include medical 
care, and need not be provided by someone who has medical training or 
qualifications.
    The Commission recognizes that agencies may need some time to 
develop the capacity to meet these requirements. The Rule gives 
agencies one year to make any necessary changes in policy, staff, or 
other aspects of their operations. The applicability date of the Rule 
is thus January 3, 2018. Prior to that date, the Commission will 
provide extensive outreach and training to help agencies prepare to 
meet the new requirements.
    The Commission's economic analysis estimates that the Rule will 
have a one-time initial cost to the federal government of approximately 
$145,580.40; an annual cost to the federal government of between 
$23,151,538.70 and $70,954,568.10; and an annual economic benefit to 
the federal government of approximately $6,617,619.00. The Rule is also 
expected to have a variety of non-monetizable qualitative and dignitary 
benefits for individuals with disabilities and individuals with 
targeted disabilities.

Background

    Section 501 imposes two distinct obligations on federal agencies. 
First, it prohibits agencies from discriminating against individuals 
with disabilities pursuant to the same standards that are ``applied 
under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . and 
the provisions of sections 501 through 504, and 510, of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . as such sections relate to 
employment.'' \6\ Current EEOC regulations provide substantial guidance 
on these standards at 29 CFR part 1630. Additional guidance is provided 
in the many EEOC appellate decisions on complaints of employment 
discrimination brought under Section 501. These decisions are published 
on the EEOC's Web site, and significant decisions are compiled in a 
publicly available digest updated annually by the Commission's Office 
of Federal Operations.\7\ This Final Rule does not change any of the 
substantive nondiscrimination requirements that

[[Page 655]]

currently apply in the federal sector, as set forth in the EEOC's 
regulations and federal sector appellate decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 29 U.S.C. 791(f).
    \7\ See Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law, Equal Emp't 
Opportunity Comm'n, http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/digest/index.cfm 
(last visited Dec. 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the section requires each federal agency to maintain, 
update annually, and submit to the Commission an ``affirmative action 
program plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals 
with disabilities.'' It further directs the Commission to approve an 
affirmative action plan (Plan) if ``the Commission determines . . . 
that such plan provides sufficient assurances, procedures and 
commitments to provide adequate hiring, placement, and advancement 
opportunities for individuals with disabilities.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 29 U.S.C. 791(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations currently implementing the Section 501 affirmative 
action requirement simply state that the federal government shall be a 
``model employer of individuals with disabilities,'' and that federal 
agencies shall ``give full consideration to the hiring, placement, and 
advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities.'' \9\ Over the 
years, however, the EEOC has issued various Management Directives to 
provide guidance on how an agency's Plan should result in the federal 
government being a model employer of individuals with disabilities. In 
addition, several Executive Orders have been issued, setting numerical 
objectives for hiring by the federal government of individuals with 
disabilities, to support the goals of Section 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 29 CFR 1614.203(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1987, the Commission issued Management Directive 713 (MD-713), 
setting the standards by which the Commission would evaluate an 
agency's Plan with regard to the hiring of people with 
disabilities.\10\ MD-713 required agencies with 1,000 or more employees 
to establish specific numerical objectives (goals) for employment of 
people with targeted disabilities, and to report the number of people 
with targeted disabilities employed by the agency.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EEOC, Management Directive 713, 1987 WL 768434 (Oct. 3, 
1987).
    \11\ Management Directive 712 (MD-712) preceded MD-713 by four 
years. See EEOC, Management Directive 712, 1983 WL 410824 (March 29, 
1983). MD-712 created documentation requirements for agencies' 
affirmative action plans, but did not include reporting 
requirements. MD-712 required agencies to focus on the employment of 
individuals with targeted disabilities; included detailed 
requirements for program administration and management, including 
staffing commitments and responsibilities; and required agencies 
with more than 1,000 employees to establish objectives for hiring 
people with targeted disabilities. For a general history of the 
EEOC's Management Directives, see Office of Fed. Operations, EEOC, A 
Look at the EEOC's Office of Federal Operation's Federal Sector 
Programs: Past, Present, and Future, Dig. of EEO L., Winter 2008, 
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/digest/xix-1.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13163 on July 26, 
2000 ``to support the goals articulated in section 501 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.'' \12\ Under this Executive Order, each 
federal agency was required to prepare a plan to increase the 
opportunities for individuals with disabilities to be employed in the 
agency, and to submit the plan to OPM within 60 days from the date of 
the order. The Executive Order stated that ``based on current hiring 
patterns and anticipated increases from expanded outreach efforts and 
appropriate accommodations, the Federal Government, over the next 5 
years, will be able to hire 100,000 qualified individuals with 
disabilities.'' \13\ The same day, President Clinton issued Executive 
Order 13164, which requires federal agencies to establish written 
reasonable accommodation procedures, with a series of detailed 
requirements to be included in those written procedures.\14\ Shortly 
thereafter, the EEOC issued Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164: 
Establishing Procedures to Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable 
Accommodation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Executive Order No. 13163, 3 CFR 285 (2001), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-07-28/pdf/00-19322.pdf.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Executive Order No. 13164, 3 CFR 286 (2001), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr28jy00-140.pdf.
    \15\ EEOC, Policy Guidance On Executive Order 13164: 
Establishing Procedures To Facilitate The Provision Of Reasonable 
Accommodation (last modified Oct. 19, 2000), http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda-accommodation_procedures.html [hereinafter 13164 
Guidance].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2003, the EEOC issued Management Directive 715 (MD-715),\16\ 
which superseded MD-713 and is still in effect. Part B of MD-715 
provides detailed standards by which the Commission judges an agency's 
affirmative action plan with regard to the hiring of people with 
disabilities. The Directive requires agencies ``to conduct an internal 
review and analysis of the effects of all current and proposed 
policies, practices, procedures and conditions that, directly or 
indirectly, relate to the employment of individuals with 
disabilities,'' and to ``collect and evaluate information and data 
necessary to make an informed assessment about the extent to which the 
agency is meeting its responsibility to provide employment 
opportunities for qualified applicants and employees with disabilities, 
especially those with targeted disabilities.'' \17\ Pursuant to 
Executive Order 13164, MD-715 also requires agencies to have written 
procedures for providing reasonable accommodations, including the 
amount of time decision makers have to answer reasonable accommodation 
requests.\18\ Finally, MD-715 reinforces the requirement from MD-713 
that agencies with 1,000 or more employees are required ``to maintain a 
special recruitment program for individuals with targeted disabilities 
and to establish specific goals for the employment and advancement of 
such individuals,'' and to report the numbers of employees with 
targeted disabilities to the EEOC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EEOC, Management Directive 715 (Oct. 1, 2003), http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715.cfm [hereinafter MD-715].
    \17\ Id. at B.III.
    \18\ Id. at B.V.
    \19\ Id. at B.V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, the EEOC issued additional guidance providing agencies 
with detailed practical advice for drafting and implementing reasonable 
accommodation procedures under Executive Order 13164,\20\ and in 2008, 
the Commission issued a detailed question-and-answer document on 
promoting the employment of individuals with disabilities in the 
federal workforce.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EEOC, Practical Advice on Drafting and Implementing 
Reasonable Accommodation Procedures under Executive Order 13164, 
(July 2005), http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/implementing_accommodation.pdf.
    \21\ EEOC, Questions and Answers: Promoting Employment of 
Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce (n.d.), 
http://eeoc.gov/federal/qanda-employment-with-disabilities.cfm 
[hereinafter Promoting Employment].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2010, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13548, 
again setting a goal of having the federal government hire 100,000 
persons with disabilities within five years.\22\ The Executive Order 
required agencies to set their own hiring goals for persons with 
disabilities as defined under Section 501 and sub-goals for persons 
with targeted disabilities as defined by SF-256, and to report those 
goals to OPM. Again, policy and guidance documents were developed 
pursuant to this Executive Order.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Executive Order No. 13548, 3 CFR 168 (2010), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-30/pdf/2010-18988.pdf.
    \23\ Office of Pers. Mgmt., Model Strategies for Recruitment and 
Hiring of People with Disabilities (Nov. 8, 2010), https://www.chcoc.gov/content/model-strategies-recruitment-and-hiring-people-disabilities-required-under-executive-order. This guidance 
document was developed in consultation with the White House, the 
Department of Labor, and the EEOC.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 656]]

The Rule

    On May 15, 2014, the Commission published an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting public comment on specific 
inquiries regarding ways to strengthen its Section 501 affirmative 
action regulations.\24\ A total of 89 comments were received.\25\ 
Taking the comments into account, the Commission published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing specific revisions to the Section 
501 regulations on February 24, 2016.\26\ The NPRM also asked for 
public input on 7 specific aspects of the proposal.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Federal Sector's Obligation to Be a Model Employer of 
Individuals with Disabilities, 79 FR 27,824 (May 15, 2014) (to be 
codified at 29 CFR 1614.203, .601(f)).
    \25\ In addition to the 89 comments, the Commission received 
several duplicate comments.
    \26\ Affirmative Action for Individuals with Disabilities in the 
Federal Government, 81 FR 9123 (Feb. 24, 2016) (to be codified at 29 
CFR 1614.203, .601(f)).
    \27\ Id. at 9130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received a total of 103 comments on the proposed 
rule, representing the opinions of 73 individuals, 52 disability 
advocacy organizations, 5 federal agencies, 2 federal government 
organizations, 3 state government organizations, 2 vocational 
rehabilitation organizations, and 1 group of administrative law 
students.\28\ Twenty-one of the comments were non-responsive. The 
comments are available for review at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Some comments represented the opinions of more than one 
entity, and some individuals submitted more than one comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has reviewed and given due consideration to all 
comments received during the public comment period, and now issues its 
Final Rule amending 29 CFR 1614.203 and 1614.601(f) to update, clarify, 
and put in one place the standards that the Commission will use to 
review and approve agency Plans. The comments resulted in numerous 
changes to the specific requirements proposed in the NPRM. Relevant 
comments and Commission responses are discussed in detail in the 
Section-by-Section Analysis below. The Commission also made several 
stylistic changes that do not affect the substantive requirements of 
the Rule.
    Commenters also offered suggestions for additional requirements not 
proposed in the NPRM. In some cases, the suggested requirements were 
not added because the Commission lacked the requisite authority. For 
example, the Rule does not amend Workers' Compensation laws; revise 
regulations governing the hiring authority for individuals with 
intellectual disabilities, severe physical disabilities, or psychiatric 
disabilities, as set forth at 5 CFR 213.3102(u) (Schedule A hiring 
authority for persons with certain disabilities) by, for example, 
extending the trial employment period or changing the eligibility 
criteria; create or abolish other hiring authorities; prohibit agencies 
from making their own hiring decisions; or extend Section 501 
obligations to state and local governments, federal contractors,\29\ or 
businesses in the private sector generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ However, we note that federal contractors are subject to 
obligations to engage in affirmative action for individuals with 
disabilities under Section 503. See 29 U.S.C. 793(d); 41 CFR pt. 60-
741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also did not add a provision that either grants or 
denies a private right of action to enforce the affirmative action 
regulations, as suggested by some commenters. The Commission requested 
public input on the ability of individuals to seek enforcement of the 
requirement to provide PAS, codified at paragraph (d)(5) of the Rule as 
amended, in individual cases. Nonetheless, this is a matter of first 
impression, and the Commission believes that its procedural regulations 
governing complaints of discrimination in the federal sector, found at 
29 CFR 1614, subpart A, are the most appropriate place to address this 
question. As such, this Rule takes no position on the availability of a 
private remedy for either the PAS obligation or the affirmative action 
obligations more generally.
    Other requirements were not added because they concerned issues 
that were beyond the scope of this rulemaking. For example, the Rule 
does not provide that a change in supervisors is a reasonable 
accommodation, that inaccessible job application processes may give 
rise to claims of employment discrimination, or that individuals have a 
right to representation during the interactive process, because these 
suggestions pertain to Section 501's nondiscrimination requirements, 
which are the same as the nondiscrimination requirements of Title I 
\30\ and certain provisions of Title V \31\ of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) applicable to private and state and local 
government employers.\32\ The EEOC has regulations describing the ADA's 
nondiscrimination requirements at 29 CFR part 1630. For similar 
reasons, the Rule does not address methods of oversight established 
elsewhere in part 1614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 42 U.S.C. 12101-12117.
    \31\ 42 U.S.C. 12201-12213.
    \32\ Congress incorporated all of the ADA's employment 
discrimination provisions in 1992. See Rehabilitation Act Amendments 
of 1992, Pub. L. 102-569, 106 Stat. 4344, 4424 (codified as amended 
at 29 U.S.C. 791(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some cases, suggested requirements were not added because they 
would affect matters governed by both EEOC and OPM regulations. For 
example, the Commission has not added requirements to the Rule designed 
to prevent violations of Section 501's qualification standard 
provisions.\33\ Qualification standards are governed by EEOC's 
nondiscrimination regulations at 29 CFR part 1630.\34\ These 
regulations clarify that the ADA/Section 501 qualification standard 
provisions require federal agencies to exempt an individual from a 
qualification standard, test, or other selection criterion if there is 
sufficient evidence that he or she cannot meet such standard, test, or 
criterion because of a disability, but can nevertheless perform the 
essential functions of the position with a reasonable accommodation (if 
one is required).\35\ However, qualification standards are also 
governed by OPM regulations.\36\ Similarly, the Final Rule does not 
address vacancy announcements; benefit programs such as return-to-work 
programs; or alternative models of employment such as apprenticeship 
programs, customized employment, and job splitting, which are also 
affected by OPM regulations. EEOC and OPM are working together to 
develop coordinated strategies on some of these issues and other 
matters over which both agencies have jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The ADA prohibits ``using qualification standards, 
employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend 
to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of 
individuals with disabilities,'' unless a defense applies. 42 U.S.C. 
12112(b)(6), 12113(a). These provisions were made applicable to 
federal agencies when Congress incorporated all of the ADA's 
employment discrimination provisions into Section 501. See 
Rehabilitation Act Amendments, 106 Stat. at 4424.
    \34\ The Commission's ADA regulations were incorporated into 
EEOC's Section 501 regulations, via full notice and comment, after 
Congress incorporated the ADA's employment discrimination provisions 
into Section 501. See Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity, 
67 FR 35,732, 35,735 (May 21, 2002) (codified at 29 CFR 
1614.203(b)). Further guidance on the nondiscrimination requirements 
pertaining to qualification standards can be found in several cases 
issued through the federal sector complaint process.
    \35\ See 29 CFR 1630.10, .15(b), .15(c); 29 CFR pt. 1630, app. 
1630.10, .15(b) and (c).
    \36\ See 5 CFR pt. 338 and authorities cited therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the Rule should include an exemption for 
small agencies. However, except in the case of the workforce analysis 
and goal requirements imposed by paragraphs

[[Page 657]]

(d)(6) and (d)(7), discussed below, the commenter failed to identify 
any basis on which to conclude that the Rule's requirements were 
inappropriate for, or especially burdensome to, small agencies. For 
example, there is no reason to believe that small agencies cannot or 
should not adopt written reasonable accommodation procedures as 
required by paragraph (d)(3)(i) of the Final Rule. The Commission 
therefore has not added a general exemption.

Authority

    The Commission issues this Final Rule under its Section 501 
rulemaking authority. Congress expressly granted the Commission 
authority to issue substantive regulations under Section 501 by 
incorporating the federal sector enforcement provisions of Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) in Section 505 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 505).\37\ The incorporated 
provisions provide that ``the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . 
. . shall issue such rules, regulations, orders and instructions as it 
deems necessary and appropriate'' to carry out its federal sector 
responsibilities under Title VII (and, by incorporation, its federal 
sector responsibilities under Section 501).\38\ The Commission also has 
express authority under Executive Order 12067 to ``issue such rules, 
regulations, policies, procedures or orders as it deems necessary to 
carry out its responsibilit[y]'' to ``provide leadership and 
coordination to the efforts of Federal departments and agencies to 
enforce all Federal statutes, Executive orders, regulations, and 
policies which require equal employment opportunity without regard to . 
. . handicap.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 29 U.S.C. 794a (incorporating 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(3), 
2000e(f)-(k), 2000e(16)).
    \38\ 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(b). This grant of authority to issue 
regulations implementing the federal sector provisions of Title VII 
is in addition to the more limited grant pursuant to EEOC's 
responsibility to enforce Title VII in the private sector. See 42 
U.S.C. 2000e-12(a) (granting the Commission authority to issue, 
amend, or rescind ``suitable procedural regulations'').
    \39\ Executive Order No. 12067, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 206 
(1978), http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12067.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, Section 501 requires federal agencies to engage 
in ``affirmative action'' for individuals with disabilities. However, 
the statute neither defines the term ``affirmative action'' nor 
provides detailed standards by which to determine whether an agency has 
met this requirement. Proper and effective enforcement of the statute 
thus ``necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of 
rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress.'' 
\40\ This gap, together with the Commission's ``generally conferred 
authority'' under Section 501, make it ``apparent . . . that Congress . 
. . expect[s] the agency to be able to speak [to the issue] with the 
force of law . . . .'' \41\ The Commission thus has both the authority 
and the responsibility to issue regulations providing specific guidance 
to federal agencies on what they must do to satisfy their Section 501 
obligation to engage in affirmative action for individuals with 
disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974); Chevron, U.S.A., 
Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984) 
(quoting Morton, 415 U.S. at 231).
    \41\ United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229 (2001) 
(citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 845); see Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & 
Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44, 55 (2011) (citing Chevron, 
467 U.S. at 843).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's prior regulations implementing the affirmative 
action requirement, requiring agencies to be ``model employers'' of 
individuals with disabilities and to give ``full consideration to the 
hiring, placement, and advancement'' of qualified individuals with 
disabilities, were promulgated pursuant to the above authority in 
1982.\42\ The Commission has also used its authority under Section 501 
to provide subregulatory guidance to federal agencies on the contents 
of affirmative action programs for individuals with disabilities since 
1987.\43\ Now, having found that its prior regulatory and subregulatory 
guidance was not sufficiently advancing the employment of qualified 
individuals with disabilities, the Commission again exercises its 
authority under Section 501 to strengthen the regulations implementing 
the affirmative action requirement.\44\ The Final Rule strengthens the 
regulations by--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity, 67 FR 
35,732, 35,735 (May 21, 2002) (codified at 29 CFR 1614.203(b)).
    \43\ See Management Directive 713, supra note 10.
    \44\ Cf. Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Shiu, 773 F.3d 
257, 261, 263-64 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (finding regulations that 
strengthened Section 503 affirmative action requirements on federal 
contractors valid under similar circumstances).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     gathering longstanding requirements previously found in a 
variety of documents into a single regulation, making them easier to 
find and clarifying that they have the force and effect of law;
     imposing a new requirement to take specific steps that are 
reasonably designed to gradually increase the number of employees with 
disabilities and employees with targeted disabilities until they meet 
specific goals set by the EEOC; and
     imposing a new requirement to provide PAS to employees 
with targeted disabilities who need them during work hours and work-
related travel.

Section-by-Section Analysis

1614.203(a) Definitions

    Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule provided definitions of key 
terms. Many of the proposed definitions were simple abbreviations: 
(a)(1) provided that ``ADA'' refers to those portions of the ADA that 
are enforced by the Commission; \45\ (a)(4) provided that ``Plan'' 
refers to an agency's affirmative action plan, as required under 29 
U.S.C 791(b); (a)(5) provided that ``Schedule A hiring authority for 
persons with certain disabilities'' refers to the hiring authority for 
individuals with intellectual disabilities, severe physical 
disabilities, and psychiatric disabilities, as set forth at 5 CFR 
213.3102(u); and (a)(6) provided that ``Section 501'' means Section 501 
of the Rehabilitation Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. 791. The Commission 
received no objections to these definitions, which are retained in the 
Rule.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ These are title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 through 
12117, and title V of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12201 through 12213, as it 
applies to employment.
    \46\ Proposed paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) have been 
redesignated (a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(8) respectively in the Final 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed rule provided that the term 
``disability'' has the same meaning as set forth in 29 CFR part 1630. 
One commenter stated that the term should instead be defined using a 
``standard set of disability identifiers'' developed pursuant to 
section 4302 of the Affordable Care Act.\47\ Because the Rule 
implements Section 501, and not the Affordable Care Act, the Commission 
is required to adopt the definition of ``disability'' that applies 
under Section 501. The proposed definition of ``disability'' has 
therefore been retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 42 U.S.C. 300kk; see generally U.S. Dep't of Health & Human 
Servs., Implementation Guidance on Data Collection Standards for 
Race, Ethnicity, Sex, Primary Language, and Disability Status 
(n.d.), https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/76331/index.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(8), providing that the term ``undue 
hardship'' has the same meaning as set forth in 29 CFR part 1630, has 
also been retained.\48\ Undue hardship, which is both a limitation on 
an agency's obligation to make reasonable accommodations and to provide 
personal assistance services, considers the nature, extent, and cost of 
an accommodation or of providing personal assistance services in 
relation to an agency's overall resources and the

[[Page 658]]

impact of the accommodation or of the requirement to provide personal 
assistance services on the operation of the agency's business. The term 
is one that agencies have been familiar with since they have been 
required to comply with Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 
agency's written reasonable accommodation procedures typically explain 
the term's meaning and application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The paragraph has been redesignated (a)(10) in the Final 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a)(3) of the proposed rule provided that the term 
``hiring authority that takes disability into account'' means any 
hiring authority that permits an agency to consider disability status 
in the selection of individuals for employment. To improve clarity, the 
definition has been revised to state that the term means any hiring 
authority that permits an agency to consider disability status ``during 
the hiring process.''
    Paragraph (a)(7) of the proposed rule defined the term ``targeted/
severe disability'' to mean disabilities specifically designated as 
``targeted/severe'' on the SF-256.\49\ As explained in the NPRM, 
disabilities that fall under this term are a subset of those that meet 
the definition of ``disability'' as defined under (a)(2). This subset 
is the focus of additional attention under several paragraphs in the 
Rule, discussed below. Some commenters stated that the Rule should use 
the term ``significant disability'' rather than ``targeted/severe 
disability,'' because some individuals find the term ``severe'' to be 
stigmatizing. One of these commenters stated further that the Rule 
should adopt the definition of ``significant disability'' given in 
Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ At the time the NPRM was published, the SF-256 used the 
term ``targeted/severe disability'' rather than ``targeted 
disability.''
    \50\ 29 U.S.C. 705(21) (``Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
or (C), the term `individual with a significant disability' means an 
individual with a disability--(i) who has a severe physical or 
mental impairment which seriously limits one or more functional 
capacities (such as mobility, communication, self-care, self-
direction, interpersonal skills, work tolerance, or work skills) in 
terms of an employment outcome; (ii) whose vocational rehabilitation 
can be expected to require multiple vocational rehabilitation 
services over an extended period of time; and (iii) who has one or 
more physical or mental disabilities resulting from amputation, 
arthritis, autism, blindness, burn injury, cancer, cerebral palsy, 
cystic fibrosis, deafness, head injury, heart disease, hemiplegia, 
hemophilia, respiratory or pulmonary dysfunction, intellectual 
disability, mental illness, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, 
musculo-skeletal disorders, neurological disorders (including stroke 
and epilepsy), paraplegia, quadriplegia, and other spinal cord 
conditions, sickle cell anemia, specific learning disability, end-
stage renal disease, or another disability or combination of 
disabilities determined on the basis of an assessment for 
determining eligibility and vocational rehabilitation needs 
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) to cause 
comparable substantial functional limitation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission declines to use the term ``significant disability'' 
in place of ``targeted/severe disability.'' The term ``significant 
disability,'' as used by the federal government, refers to a group of 
disabilities that qualify an individual to receive certain government-
funded services and benefits.\51\ By contrast, the term ``targeted/
severe disability,'' as used in the proposed rule, was intended to 
refer to a group of disabilities that ``have historically been used to 
exclude qualified individuals from employment,'' \52\ and therefore 
that, ``as a matter of policy, [have been] identified for special 
emphasis in affirmative action programs.'' \53\ We believe that use of 
a single term--``significant disability''--to refer both to 
disabilities that have historically been used to exclude qualified 
individuals from employment, and, at the same time, to a different 
group of disabilities that qualify an individual to receive certain 
government-funded services and benefits, is likely to cause confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 796b (``Services may be provided under 
[29 U.S.C. ch. 16, subch. VII, pt. A] to any individual with a 
significant disability, as defined in section 705(21)(B) of [title 
29].'').
    \52\ Promoting Employment, supra note 21, at I.
    \53\ MD-715, supra note 16, at app. A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Final Rule does, however, use the term ``targeted disability'' 
in place of ``targeted/severe disability.'' \54\ OPM's revised SF-256 
uses the term ``targeted disabilities or serious health conditions'' 
rather than ``targeted/severe disabilities.'' The revision to the Rule 
therefore both conforms the Rule to OPM's new terminology and addresses 
the commenters' concern that some individuals find the term ``severe'' 
to be stigmatizing. In addition, the definition of the term has been 
widened to include disabilities that fall under one of the first 12 
categories of disability listed in Part A of question 5 on the EEOC's 
Applicant Flow Form, which include several disabilities that have 
historically been used to exclude qualified individuals from 
employment, but that are not designated as ``targeted'' on the SF-256 
(for example cerebral palsy).\55\ The EEOC recognizes that it will be 
helpful for agencies to have an updated SF-256 that conforms to the 
Applicant Flow Form. The EEOC continues to work with OPM in such an 
effort. In the meantime, the EEOC will consider both sets of 
disabilities to be ``targeted'' for purposes of the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The definition of ``targeted disability'' appears in 
paragraph (a)(9) of the Final Rule.
    \55\ See Applicant Flow Form, supra note 4, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Definitions of the terms ``personal assistance services'' and 
``personal assistance service provider'' have been added to the 
paragraph at (a)(5) and (a)(6), because several commenters expressed 
confusion over the meaning of the term in the proposed rule. We discuss 
the definition in connection with paragraph (d)(5) below.

1614.203(b) Nondiscrimination

    Paragraph 1614.203(b) of the existing regulations states that 
Section 501 prohibits disability discrimination in employment, and that 
the standards used to determine whether an agency has violated the 
prohibition against discrimination are those applied under the ADA. The 
NPRM proposed minor revisions to improve clarity. The Commission 
received no objections to the proposed revisions, which have been 
retained in the Final Rule.

1614.203(c) Model Employer

    This paragraph redesignates and revises paragraph 1614.203(a) of 
the current regulations, which provides that the federal government 
shall be a ``model employer'' of individuals with disabilities, and 
that agencies shall ``give full consideration to the hiring, placement, 
and advancement of individuals with disabilities.''
    The NPRM did not propose any textual changes to the paragraph. 
However, some commenters objected to the use of the term ``placement,'' 
both here and throughout the regulation, because some individuals with 
disabilities find it offensive. Accordingly, alternate language has 
been incorporated here and throughout the Rule where possible. However, 
because Section 501 itself uses the term ``placement,'' \56\ the Rule 
retains the term where it directly references the language of the 
statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See 29 U.S.C. 791(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters stated that the paragraph should be revised to 
reflect the affirmative action requirements imposed through this 
rulemaking. The Commission agrees. Accordingly, the paragraph has been 
revised to state that ``[a]gencies shall [ ] take affirmative action to 
promote the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of qualified 
individuals with disabilities, with the goal of eliminating under-
representation of individuals with disabilities in the federal 
workforce,'' and that agencies shall give ``full consideration to the . 
. . retention of qualified individuals with disabilities in the federal 
workforce.''

1614.203(d) Affirmative Action Plan

    As provided by Section 501, this paragraph states that each agency 
shall adopt and implement a Plan that

[[Page 659]]

provides sufficient assurances, procedures, and commitments to provide 
adequate recruitment, hiring, and advancement opportunities for 
individuals with disabilities at all levels of federal employment. It 
also sets forth the requirements that the Plan must meet in order to be 
approved by the Commission. The specific requirements are discussed in 
separate sections below.
    Several commenters stated that the term ``adequate,'' as used in 
the statutory language quoted above, should be defined to mean 
``adequate to ensure meeting the goals required under paragraph (d)(7) 
of this section.'' The Commission disagrees. If, on the one hand, the 
proposed definition was intended simply to clarify the meaning of the 
word, the Commission believes that the clarification is unnecessary. 
Section 501 requires the Commission to approve agency Plans if they 
``provide[ ] sufficient assurances, procedures, and commitments to 
provide adequate recruitment, hiring, and advancement opportunities for 
individuals with disabilities at all levels of federal employment.'' By 
setting forth the criteria that the Commission will use to determine 
whether to approve a Plan in paragraph (d), the Rule effectively 
defines the meaning of that phrase as a whole. If, on the other hand, 
the definition was suggested in order to create additional criteria by 
which the Commission will evaluate agency Plans, the Commission 
disagrees with the suggestion because it would imply, contrary to 
paragraph (f) and to the Commission's intention, that paragraph (d) 
does not set forth an exhaustive list of Plan criteria.

1614.203(d)(1)(i) Disability Hiring and Advancement Program: 
Recruitment

    Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of the proposed rule required agencies to use 
programs and resources that identify applicants who are eligible to be 
appointed under hiring authorities that take disabilities into account, 
examples of which include specialized training programs and databases 
of potential job applicants with disabilities. The paragraph also 
required agencies to establish and maintain contacts with organizations 
that specialize in the employment of individuals with disabilities, 
such as American Job Centers, State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, 
the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program, Centers 
for Independent Living, and Employment Network Service providers. In 
addition, the NPRM asked whether the Rule should require agencies to 
maintain a file or database of individuals who have been determined to 
be eligible for appointment under a hiring authority that takes 
disability into account, but who were not hired, and, if so, whether 
inclusion in the database should be voluntary.
    A significant number of commenters stated that recruitment of 
individuals with targeted disabilities should receive additional 
emphasis in the paragraph. Consistent with the federal government's 
policy of giving targeted disabilities ``special emphasis in 
affirmative action programs,'' \57\ paragraph (d)(1)(i) has been 
amended to require agencies to use programs and resources that identify 
job applicants with disabilities, ``including individuals with targeted 
disabilities,'' who are eligible for appointment under a special hiring 
authority, and to establish and maintain contacts with organizations 
that specialize in providing assistance to individuals with 
disabilities, ``including individuals with targeted disabilities,'' in 
securing and maintaining employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ MD-715, supra note 16, at app. A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that agencies should be required to use all 
of the programs and resources, and to maintain contact with all of the 
disability organizations, given as examples in the paragraph. Some 
stated that use of additional programs and resources, such as 
internship programs and community message boards, and contact with 
additional disability organizations, such as state Protection and 
Advocacy organizations, Ticket to Work networks, supported and 
customized employment providers, college or university career centers 
that cater to individuals with disabilities, and local education 
authorities, should also be mandatory.
    The Commission is not persuaded that every agency will benefit from 
the same set of programs, resources, and disability organizations in 
their efforts to recruit individuals with disabilities and individuals 
with targeted disabilities. The particular programs, resources, and 
disability organizations referenced in the paragraph have therefore 
been kept as examples. Because there is no need to make the list of 
examples exhaustive, most of the suggested additions were not included 
in the final paragraph, though they certainly may be appropriate 
resources to assist agencies in meeting their affirmative action 
obligations. However, because it was a particularly common suggestion, 
internship programs were added as examples of programs or resources 
that can be used to identify individuals who may be appointed under 
hiring authorities that take disability into account.
    Some commenters stated that, instead of requiring agencies to 
``maintain contacts'' with organizations that specialize in the 
employment of individuals with disabilities, the Commission should 
require agencies to establish and maintain ``linkage agreements or 
other formal arrangements'' with such organizations. The paragraph has 
been revised to state that the required contacts may include formal 
agreements, but does not make formal agreements mandatory. The EEOC 
lacks the information necessary to determine, for example, how many 
formal agreements each agency should have, what each party to the 
agreement should be obligated to do, and what should happen if a party 
fails to meet an obligation in the agreement. Further, the Commission 
suspects that different approaches may be appropriate for different 
agencies.
    Many commenters responding to the proposal to require a file or 
database of individuals who have been determined to be eligible for 
appointment under a hiring authority that takes disability into account 
but who have not been hired generally favored some version of the 
proposal, but there was disagreement regarding the location of the 
database. For example, several commenters stated that the file/database 
needs to be government-wide in order to be effective. Other commenters 
stated that the databases should be required, but they would be more 
effective if each agency maintained its own database of individuals 
with disabilities who had already evidenced interest in the agency.
    Upon further consideration, however, the Commission has concluded 
that agencies should be encouraged to maintain such databases, rather 
than making such databases mandatory for every agency. Databases 
containing the r[eacute]sum[eacute]s of applicants eligible for 
appointment under the Schedule A hiring authority for individuals with 
certain disabilities, and similar resources, will greatly assist 
agencies in locating and hiring qualified job applicants with 
disabilities and targeted disabilities. Such databases will be of 
significant help as agencies seek to meet their targets with regarding 
to hiring such individuals.
    The Commission therefore retains ``databases of potential job 
applicants with disabilities'' as an example of programs and resources 
that identify such applicants in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of the Rule, 
and encourages agencies to develop new databases or augment existing 
r[eacute]sum[eacute] databases to fulfill these

[[Page 660]]

functions. Should an agency decide to maintain such a database, the 
Commission advises the agency to include individuals in the database on 
a voluntary basis only, and to retain in the database only such 
information as is necessary to determine an applicant's identity, 
qualifications, and eligibility for appointment under a hiring 
authority that takes disability into account. Medical information about 
an individual's specific disability should not be included. The 
Commission is willing to provide technical assistance to any agency 
with regard to maintaining a database consistent with all applicable 
privacy \58\ and record retention \59\ laws and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ R[eacute]sum[eacute]s, like all records that are personally 
identifiable and contained in a system of records, are subject to 
the confidentiality requirements of the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. 
552a. Privacy Act requirements regarding r[eacute]sum[eacute]s that 
are submitted by applicants to federal agencies, including those 
submitted by applicants for appointment under the Schedule A hiring 
authority for individuals with certain disabilities, are 
specifically addressed by the Office of Personnel Management's 
Government-Wide Systems of Records Notice, OPM/GOVT-5, Recruiting, 
Examining, and Placement Records. See Privacy Act of 1974, System of 
Records, 71 FR 35,351 (June 19, 2006); Privacy Act of 1974; Routine 
Use Implementation; System of Records, 80 FR 74,815 (Nov. 30, 2015).
    \59\ Federal record retention requirements are overseen by the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). See, e.g., 
Records Management, Nat'l Archives & Recs. Admin., https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/ (last visited Dec. 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1614.203(d)(1)(ii) Disability Hiring and Advancement Program: 
Application Process

    Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule required agencies to 
ensure that they have sufficient staff to handle any disability-related 
issues that arise during the application and selection processes. It 
also required the agency to provide such staff with training, support, 
and other resources sufficient to enable them to (A) answer any 
disability-related questions from members of the public regarding the 
application and hiring processes; (B) provide job applicants with 
necessary reasonable accommodations; (C) accept applications for 
appointment under hiring authorities that take disability into account; 
(D) determine whether individuals who have applied for appointment 
under a hiring authority that takes disability into account are 
eligible for such appointment; (E) forward the application of an 
individual who has applied for appointment to a particular position 
under a hiring authority that takes disability into account and who is 
eligible to the relevant hiring officials, and explain to those 
officials how and when the individual may be appointed; and (F) oversee 
any other disability-related hiring programs. Proposed paragraphs 
(d)(1)(ii)(D) and (d)(1)(ii)(E) were combined into a single paragraph 
(d)(1)(ii)(E) in the Final Rule, in order to clarify that agencies are 
not required to determine whether an individual is eligible for 
appointment under a hiring authority that takes disability into account 
unless such individual is being considered for a particular position.
    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should be more specific 
as to who should perform the duties described above. Commenters 
suggested, for example, that only employees who focus on disability-
related issues full time, employees who themselves have disabilities, 
or employees who are not under the supervision of the office of human 
resources should perform the duties. One commenter stated that the 
paragraph should specify the number of staff members who are assigned 
to these duties.
    The Commission believes that agencies should be afforded some 
flexibility in how the duties are carried out and declines to adopt a 
one-size-fits-all approach. Some small agencies, for example, may not 
need an employee who works on disability-related issues on a full-time 
basis, and the proper number of employees required to handle duties 
related to the hiring of individuals with disabilities will vary 
depending on an agency's size and structure. Additionally, we see no 
reason to conclude categorically that employees who handle issues 
related to applications from individuals with disabilities should not 
be under the supervision of an agency's human resources office, though 
we caution that a human resources specialist assigned to handle 
applications for a particular job may not necessarily have the 
necessary expertise to handle requests for reasonable accommodation, 
questions about hiring authorities that take disability into account, 
and other questions from job applicants with disabilities. Finally, the 
Commission does not believe that employees with disabilities are 
necessarily the only individuals capable of effectively handling duties 
related to the hiring of other individuals with disabilities, and 
embodying such an assumption in the Final Rule may actually work to 
encourage the segregation of individuals with disabilities into 
specific job categories.
    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require agencies 
to provide relevant staff members with accurate information on 
reasonable accommodation, the Schedule A hiring authority for persons 
with certain disabilities, the affirmative action requirements imposed 
under this rulemaking, and other disability-related issues. Because the 
paragraph already requires agencies to provide ``sufficient training, 
support, and other resources to carry out'' the tasks listed above, the 
Commission concludes that no additional language is necessary.

1614.203(d)(1)(iii) Disability Hiring and Advancement Program: 
Advancement

    This paragraph of the proposed rule required agencies to take 
specific steps to ensure that current employees with disabilities have 
sufficient opportunities for advancement, such as engaging in efforts 
to ensure that employees with disabilities are informed of and have 
opportunities to enroll in relevant training, developing and 
maintaining mentoring programs, and administering exit interviews that 
address the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, and advancement of 
individuals with disabilities.
    Some commenters stated that all of the specific steps referenced in 
the paragraph should be mandatory. Others stated that they should be 
made more specific, by, for example, requiring agencies to hire 
dedicated ``disability advancement staff''; approach all employees with 
disabilities when training opportunities arise; give all notices of 
training opportunities ``promptly'' to individuals with disabilities in 
accessible formats; hire full-time assistive technology experts, and 
make use of the programs, resources, and disability organizations 
referenced in paragraph (d)(1)(i) to facilitate advancement.\60\ Again, 
the Commission is not persuaded that every agency will benefit from the 
same strategies for improving advancement opportunities for individuals 
with disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities. The Rule 
has therefore retained the original examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ As an alternative, the same commenter suggested that the 
paragraph should be revised to require ``extra,'' ``concentrated,'' 
or ``specialized'' efforts to ensure that employees with 
disabilities are aware of training opportunities. Because the 
Commission does not know how the additional language would change 
the obligations imposed by the paragraph, the alternative suggestion 
was not considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should contain 
prohibitions against disability discrimination. For example, commenters 
stated that the paragraph should require agencies to make reasonable 
accommodations available to participants in mentoring

[[Page 661]]

programs, that individuals with disabilities must be afforded equal 
opportunities to gain work experience, and that individuals appointed 
under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain 
disabilities should be afforded supervision similar to that given other 
employees.\61\ As explained above, the Commission believes that it is 
inappropriate to provide new guidance on nondiscrimination obligations 
applicable to federal agencies, as well as to private and state and 
local government employers, in a regulation that applies only to the 
affirmative action obligations of federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ One commenter stated that the Rule should prohibit 
individuals appointed under the Schedule A hiring authority for 
people with certain disabilities from filing discrimination 
complaints. Because this requirement does not implement principles 
of affirmative action, it has not been included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require review of 
all adverse actions taken against individuals with disabilities by, for 
example, the head of the agency or a neutral, non-agency party. Federal 
employees already possess several means of subjecting adverse actions 
to further review. Depending on the issues involved, employees may make 
use of existing internal mechanisms including alternative dispute 
resolution, if available; file complaints of employment discrimination 
pursuant to 29 CFR 1614.106; file appeals with the Merit Systems 
Protection Board; and file appeals with the U.S. Office of Special 
Counsel.\62\ The Commission has been given no reason to believe that an 
additional layer of review would improve either the accuracy or the 
speed with which reviews are carried out. Indeed, because an additional 
layer of review would not toll existing time frames for filing 
complaints of discrimination, it is quite likely that such a 
requirement would significantly burden agencies while resulting in 
little if any impact on the number of discrimination complaints filed, 
or worse, cause confusion for employees with disabilities that could 
result in late filing of complaints. The commenters' suggestion 
therefore was not incorporated into the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See generally Employee Rights & Appeals: Alternative 
Dispute Resolution, Office of Pers. Mgmt., https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/employee-rights-appeals/#url=Alternative-Dispute-Resolution (last visited Dec. 21, 2016) 
(discussing alternative dispute resolution); Employee Rights & 
Appeals: Appeals, Office of Pers. Mgmt., https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/employee-rights-appeals/#url=Appeals (last visited Dec. 21, 2016) (discussing the right to 
file a complaint of discrimination under the 1614 process and to 
file appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board and U.S. Office 
of Special Counsel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1614.203(d)(2) Disability Anti-Harassment Policy

    Paragraph (d)(2) of the proposed rule required agencies to state 
expressly in their anti-harassment policies that disability-based 
harassment is prohibited. The Commission received no comments objecting 
to the requirement. It therefore has been retained in the Final Rule.
    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should also require 
agencies to provide training on the disability-based harassment policy. 
The Commission is not persuaded that the addition is necessary. 
Agencies routinely provide training on their anti-harassment policies. 
If, as required under this paragraph, an agency's policy expressly 
states that disability-based harassment is prohibited, the training 
should naturally address the topic. The Commission notes that 
Commissioners Chai R. Feldblum and Victoria A. Lipnic recently 
published a report on how agencies and other employers can improve 
efforts to prevent harassment that discusses disability-based 
harassment throughout, and that includes a section specifically on the 
prevalence of disability-based harassment.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Chai R. Feldblum & Victoria A. Lipnic, EEOC, Report of 
the Co-Chairs of the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in 
the Workplace 12-13 (2016), https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/upload/report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1614.203(d)(3)(i) Reasonable Accommodation: Procedures

    Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i) required agencies to make reasonable 
accommodation procedures available to job applicants and employees in 
both written and accessible formats. It also required the procedures to 
address a minimum of 20 specific topics, including expedited 
processing, interim accommodations, reasonable accommodation requests, 
confidentiality, processing deadlines, the process for filing 
complaints pursuant to 29 CFR 1614.106, and notice of denied requests.
    Commenters did not object to the proposal to make reasonable 
accommodation procedures available in written and accessible formats. 
One commenter stated that the paragraph should require the procedures 
to be available online. Recognizing the central importance of online 
access in the modern workplace, the paragraph now provides that ``[t]he 
Plan shall require the agency to . . . post on its public Web site, and 
make available to all job applicants and employees in written and 
accessible formats, reasonable accommodation procedures. . . .''
    Some commenters suggested adding a statement that ``accessible 
formats'' include American Sign Language (ASL). The requirement to make 
reasonable accommodation procedures available in written ``and 
accessible formats'' was drafted so as not to require the accessible 
format to be ``written,'' and to provide job applicants with maximum 
flexibility to request a type of accessible format that meets his or 
her particular needs. The language is sufficiently general that it 
should be interpreted to encompass ASL, as well as documents in Braille 
or large print, documents in an electronic format that can be read by 
screen reading software, an individual who can read the document aloud, 
and other types of accessible formats.
    Most of the public comments addressing this paragraph concerned 4 
of the 20 required topics--
     (d)(3)(i)(B) (redesignated (d)(3)(i)(B) and (d)(3)(i)(C) 
\64\): Reassignment. The proposed paragraph required the procedures to 
explain that the agency will consider reassignment to a position for 
which the employee is qualified, and not just permission to compete for 
such a position, as a reasonable accommodation if no other reasonable 
accommodation would permit the employee to perform the essential 
functions of his or her current position. It also required the 
procedures to explain how and where officials should conduct searches 
for vacant positions when considering reassignment as a reasonable 
accommodation. The Commission has revised the paragraph to clarify that 
agencies need only consider reassignment ``to a vacant position'' as a 
reasonable accommodation, consistent with 29 CFR 1630.2(o)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ For reasons of clarity, the proposed paragraph was split 
into 2 paragraphs in the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters stated that the paragraph should clarify that 
the ``reassignment rule applies to nondiscrimination obligations,'' 
i.e., that failure to provide reassignment as a reasonable 
accommodation may give rise to liability for employment discrimination. 
Because each of the 20 required topics pertain to the obligation to 
provide reasonable accommodations, which is a nondiscrimination 
obligation,\65\ they all in some sense express principles that ``apply 
to nondiscrimination obligations.'' The Commission therefore disagrees 
that this paragraph in particular should include

[[Page 662]]

the suggested statement. However, in response to the commenters' 
concerns, the proposed paragraph has been revised to state that 
reassignment ``is'' a reasonable accommodation, and that such 
reassignment ``must'' be considered if the agency determines that no 
other reasonable accommodation would permit the employee to perform the 
essential functions of his or her current position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(5)(A); 29 CFR 1630.9; 29 CFR pt. 1630, 
app. 1630.9, .9(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the paragraph should clarify that only 
employees, and not job applicants, may require reassignment as a 
reasonable accommodation. Because the paragraph requires an agency's 
procedures to state that it will consider reassignment when the 
``employee'' can no longer perform the essential functions of his or 
her ``current position,'' no further clarification is required.
    One commenter stated that the paragraph should require agencies to 
develop and maintain a database of vacant positions within the agency, 
and to require that agency officials use the database when considering 
whether to provide reassignment as a reasonable accommodation. The 
Commission believes that the addition is unnecessary, as long as an 
agency ``[n]otif[ies] supervisors and other relevant agency employees 
how and where they are to conduct searches for available vacancies when 
considering reassignment as a reasonable accommodation'' as required 
under revised paragraph (d)(3)(i)(C).
     (d)(3)(i)(I) (redesignated (d)(3)(i)(J)): Requests for 
supplemental medical documentation. The proposed paragraph required the 
procedures to explain the agency's right to request relevant 
supplemental medical information if the information submitted by the 
requester is insufficient. The Commission has revised the paragraph to 
clarify that ``insufficient'' means ``insufficient for the purposes 
specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(I) of this section'' (referring to the 
agency's right to require documentation sufficient to ``explain the 
nature of the individual's disability, his or her need for reasonable 
accommodation, and how the requested accommodation, if any, will assist 
the individual to apply for a job, perform the essential functions of 
the job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of the workplace'').
    One commenter stated that the paragraph should cap the number of 
times an agency may request supplemental documentation. As explained in 
the NPRM, current anti-discrimination law already prohibits agencies 
from requesting more documentation than is necessary to establish the 
existence of a disability and the need for accommodation.\66\ To the 
extent that the proposed cap would further restrict agencies, it would 
have the effect of denying them documentation that may be necessary to 
carry out the interactive process, potentially resulting in denials of 
needed accommodations. Therefore, the Commission has declined to impose 
a cap on the number of agency requests for documentation to support an 
accommodation request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See, e.g., 13164 Guidance, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (d)(3)(i)(L) (redesignated (d)(3)(i)(M) and (d)(3)(i)(O) 
\67\): Deadlines. The proposed paragraph required the procedures to 
designate a maximum amount of time, absent extenuating circumstances, 
that the agency has to either provide a requested accommodation or deny 
the request. It also required the procedures to explain that the time 
limit begins to run when the accommodation is first requested, and 
that, where a particular reasonable accommodation can be provided in 
less than the maximum amount of time allowed, failure to respond 
promptly may result in a violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ For reasons of clarity, the paragraph on deadlines in the 
proposed rule was split into 2 paragraphs in the Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the Commission should eliminate the time 
limit requirement. The suggestion runs counter to longstanding federal 
policy. Executive Order 13164 states that each agency's procedures must 
``[d]esignate a time period during which reasonable accommodation 
requests will be granted or denied, absent extenuating circumstances.'' 
\68\ As instructed by Executive Order 13164, the Commission provided 
further clarification of the requirement in guidance, which is still in 
effect.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Executive Order No. 13164, supra note 14.
    \69\ See 13164 Guidance, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require the 
procedures to provide additional information on the types of 
extenuating circumstances that would justify a delay in providing a 
reasonable accommodation. Commenters stated, for example, that the 
procedures should list all possible extenuating circumstances, should 
provide that an inability to secure funding is not an extenuating 
circumstance, should state that a delay is justified ``[a]s long as 
both parties are actively engaged in the interactive process,'' or 
should state that a requester's failure to engage in the interactive 
process, for example by failing to provide necessary documentation, 
constitutes an extenuating circumstance.
    Extenuating circumstances are, by definition, factors that cannot 
``reasonably have been anticipated or avoided in advance of the request 
for accommodation.'' \70\ Thus, it is not possible to specify all such 
circumstances in a regulation. In addition, some agencies may define 
certain acts or omissions during the interactive process as 
``extenuating circumstances,'' while others may not. For example, the 
inability to provide equipment needed as a reasonable accommodation 
because a vendor has suddenly and unexpectedly gone out of business 
might be an extenuating circumstance for a small agency making a 
purchase of the equipment for the first time, but not for a large 
agency that has extensive experience with providing reasonable 
accommodations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission therefore believes that it is not possible to create 
a definitive list of what constitute extenuating circumstances. 
However, a new paragraph has been added at (d)(3)(i)(N) clarifying the 
Commission's longstanding position that ``the agency will not be 
expected to adhere to its usual timelines if an individual's health 
professional fails to provide needed documentation in a timely 
manner.'' \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (d)(3)(i)(N) (redesignated (d)(3)(i)(P)): Interim 
accommodations. The proposed paragraph required the agency's procedures 
to explain that, where a reasonable accommodation cannot be provided 
immediately, the agency must provide an interim accommodation whenever 
possible.
    One commenter stated that the paragraph should not require an 
agency's procedures to state an interim accommodation ``must'' be 
provided ``whenever possible,'' but rather that the agency will ``seek 
to'' provide interim accommodations during a delay. Another commenter 
stated that the procedures should not require the agency to provide 
interim accommodations if the existence of a disability, the need for 
accommodation, and the effectiveness of the proposed accommodation have 
not been established.
    The Commission disagrees that agencies should only be required to 
``seek to'' provide an interim accommodation when there is a delay in 
providing a preferred accommodation. Interim accommodations may be 
necessary in order to avoid, for example, a worsening of symptoms, 
exacerbation

[[Page 663]]

of a medical condition, or pain. They therefore may play a crucial role 
in preserving the requesting individual's ability to work. The 
Commission also disagrees that interim accommodations should only be 
required once the existence of a disability, the need for 
accommodation, and the effectiveness of a proposed accommodation have 
been established. The term ``establish'' connotes a formal finding. 
There may be reasons why an agency does not make a formal finding even 
though it is reasonably likely that the requesting individual is 
entitled to a reasonable accommodation, such as where a disability is 
obvious even though the appropriate accommodation has not been 
established.
    For the foregoing reasons, the paragraph has been amended to 
require an interim accommodation that allows the requesting individual 
to perform some or all of the essential functions of his or her job 
when ``all the facts and circumstances known to the agency make it 
reasonably likely that [the] individual will be entitled to a 
reasonable accommodation, . . . [and] it is possible to do so without 
imposing undue hardship on the agency.''
    Other commenters stated that agencies should be required to address 
topics in addition to the 20 proposed in the NPRM in their reasonable 
accommodation procedures. For example, commenters stated that the 
procedures should be required to explain that employees and applicants 
do not need to use ``magic words'' in order to begin the interactive 
process; that reasonable accommodations may be available to help 
applicants meet qualification standards; that the interactive process 
is ``ongoing''; and that employees and job applicants have an 
obligation to participate in the interactive process. None of the 
requirements were added because they are implicit in existing EEOC 
requirements. For example, the requirement to explain that employees 
and applicants do not need to use ``magic words'' in order to begin the 
interactive process is implicit in the existing requirement to 
``[p]rovide guidance to supervisors on how to recognize requests for 
reasonable accommodation'' at (b)(i)(3)(G). Moreover, the list of 20 
topics is only intended to set a minimum; agencies are free to address 
additional topics in the procedures if they wish to do so.
    The Commission made an unrequested change to proposed paragraph 
(d)(3)(i)(G) (redesignated (d)(3)(i)(H) in the Final Rule), clarifying 
that decision makers should communicate with individuals who have 
requested a reasonable accommodation early in the interactive process 
``and throughout the process.'' The revision does not represent a 
change in Commission policy.

1614.203(d)(3)(ii) Reasonable Accommodation: Cost of Accommodations

    Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of the proposed rule required agencies to 
inform all employees who are authorized to grant or deny requests for 
reasonable accommodation that, pursuant to the regulations implementing 
the undue hardship defense at 29 CFR part 1630, all available resources 
are considered when determining whether a denial of reasonable 
accommodation based on cost is appropriate. As a clarification, this 
portion of the paragraph has been revised to state that all available 
resources are considered, ``excluding those designated by statute for a 
specific purpose that does not include reasonable accommodation.'' The 
paragraph also required the agency to ensure that relevant decision-
makers are informed about various external resources that may be used 
in providing reasonable accommodations, including, for example, a 
centralized fund specifically created by the agency for providing 
reasonable accommodations, the Department of Defense Computer and 
Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP),\72\ and agency funds that, 
although not designated specifically for providing reasonable 
accommodations, may be used for that purpose. The purpose of the 
paragraph was to ensure that sufficient funds are available for more 
costly accommodations when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See generally Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program, 
http://www.cap.mil (last visited Aug. 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters stated that the paragraph should require a 
centralized fund. In the NPRM, the Commission stated that it did not 
require a centralized fund due to practical concerns regarding the 
precise manner in which an agency's appropriated funds are held, 
requested, and disbursed, and due to the fact that centralized funding 
does not ensure that sufficient funds are provided for costly 
accommodations where, for example, the fund is too small or relevant 
decision-makers do not know how to access the fund. The commenters 
argued that these concerns could be overcome by, for example, requiring 
agencies to base the size of the fund on costs in previous years and 
instructing relevant personnel how to access the fund.
    The EEOC has supported the use of a centralized fund to pay for 
reasonable accommodation.\73\ We think that a centralized fund is one 
of the best and easiest ways to ensure that requests for reasonable 
accommodation are not denied for reasons of cost, and that individuals 
with disabilities are not excluded from employment due to the 
anticipated cost of a reasonable accommodation, if the resources 
available to the agency as a whole would enable it to provide one 
without undue hardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See, e.g., EEOC, Instructions to Federal Agencies for EEO 
MD-715 I (last updated July 20, 2004), http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/715instruct/section1.html (``The Model EEO Program and 
Agency Self-Assessment Checklist'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Commission is not persuaded that a centralized fund is 
the only way to achieve this objective. For example, centralized 
contracting vehicles may be an effective alternative. The paragraph has 
thus been amended to require agencies to take specific steps--which may 
include adoption of a centralized fund--to achieve these goals. The 
paragraph further states that such steps must be reasonably designed 
to, at a minimum--
     ensure that anyone who is authorized to grant or deny 
requests for reasonable accommodation or to make hiring decisions is 
aware that, pursuant to the regulations implementing the undue hardship 
defense at 29 CFR part 1630, all resources available to the agency as a 
whole, excluding those designated by statute for a specific purpose 
that does not include reasonable accommodation, are considered when 
determining whether a denial of reasonable accommodation based on cost 
is lawful; and
     ensure that anyone authorized to grant or deny requests 
for reasonable accommodation or to make hiring decisions is aware of, 
and knows how to arrange for the use of, agency resources available to 
provide the accommodation, including any centralized fund the agency 
may have for that purpose.
    The revised paragraph requires agencies to adopt systems that 
perform the same valuable functions of centralized funds, while 
providing them with flexibility to work within existing budgetary 
schemes.

1614.203(d)(3)(iii) Reasonable Accommodation: Notification of Basis for 
Denial

    Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of the proposed rule required agencies to 
provide a job applicant or employee who is denied a reasonable 
accommodations with a written notice that explains the reason

[[Page 664]]

for the denial, notifies the applicant or employee of any available 
internal appeal or informal dispute resolution processes, provides 
instructions on how to file a complaint of discrimination pursuant to 
29 CFR 1614.106, and explains that, pursuant to 29 CFR 1614.105, the 
right to file a complaint will be lost unless the job applicant or 
employee initiates contact with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the 
denial regardless of whether he or she participates in an informal 
dispute resolution process. The paragraph has been amended to clarify 
that the notice must be made available in accessible formats.
    One commenter stated that agencies should also be required to 
provide notices to individuals when they first request reasonable 
accommodations, stating that they may file complaints of discrimination 
if the agency fails to make a decision on or before a ``date certain.'' 
The same commenter stated that agencies should also provide notices 
whenever they determine that extenuating circumstances justify a delay 
in provision of an accommodation.
    The intended purpose of the suggested notices appears to be to (a) 
inform job applicants and employees who request reasonable 
accommodations that, absent extenuating circumstances, the agency must 
either provide a reasonable accommodation or deny the request within a 
certain number of days; (b) ensure that requesting individuals are 
aware of any alleged extenuating circumstances that justify a delay in 
providing a reasonable accommodation; and (c) inform requesters that 
they have the right to file complaints of discrimination if the agency 
fails to meet its deadlines absent extenuating circumstances. 
Reasonable accommodation procedures that comply with paragraph 
(d)(3)(i) should already satisfy these objectives: (d)(3)(i)(M) 
requires the procedures to designate the maximum amount of time the 
agency has, absent extenuating circumstances, to either provide a 
requested accommodation or deny the request; (d)(3)(i)(S) requires the 
agency to notify requesters of any alleged extenuating circumstances 
that justify a delay; and (d)(3)(i)(T) requires the agency to explain 
the requester's right to file a complaint. The additional notices are 
therefore unnecessary.

1614.203(d)(4) Accessibility of Facilities and Technology

    Paragraph (d)(4) of the proposed rule required agencies to provide 
all employees with contact information for individuals who are 
responsible for ensuring agency compliance with Section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act (Section 508),\74\ which requires all electronic and 
information technology purchased, maintained, or used by the agency to 
be readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and 
for individuals who are responsible for ensuring agency compliance with 
the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA),\75\ which requires the 
agency to ensure that its facilities are physically accessible to 
people with disabilities. It also required agencies to provide clear 
instructions on how to file complaints alleging violations of those 
laws, and to assist individuals with filing complaints against another 
federal agency when an investigation has shown that such other agency 
is responsible for the alleged violation. The paragraph does not 
require the agency to provide legal advice, or to represent individuals 
in complaints against other agencies; it merely requires agencies to 
provide contact information. The paragraph has been modified to clarify 
that the information must be available in accessible formats, and that 
it should be available online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 29 U.S.C. 794d.
    \75\ 42 U.S.C. 4151-4157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require agencies 
to provide the information to new hires ``immediately.'' The paragraph 
requires agencies to provide the information to ``all'' employees. 
Because ``all'' employees include newly hired employees, no change was 
required.
    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require agencies 
to inform employees of their substantive rights under Section 508 and 
the ABA, in addition to their enforcement rights under those laws. 
Because employees may be equally unaware of their substantive rights 
and their enforcement rights under Section 508 and the ABA, the revised 
paragraph requires agencies to provide employees with information on 
both. Again, the paragraph does not require agencies to provide legal 
advice or represent the individual. Agencies may satisfy this 
requirement by providing Internet links to existing resources on 
Section 508 and the ABA.
    Other commenters stated that the requirement to ``assist'' 
individuals with filing complaints against other agencies was unclear, 
and that, to the extent that it was intended to require agencies to act 
as advocates for, or advisors to, individuals in actions against other 
agencies, it should be struck. The paragraph was not intended to 
require agencies to act as advocates for employees in actions against 
other agencies. The paragraph has been modified to clarify that 
agencies are only required to provide information on where to file a 
complaint against another agency when an investigation shows that such 
other agency is responsible for an alleged violation.

1614.203(d)(5) Personal Services Allowing Employees To Participate in 
the Workplace

    Currently, agencies are required to provide certain job-related 
services to individuals with disabilities as reasonable accommodations 
if doing so would enable them to apply for a job, perform job 
functions, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment, absent 
undue hardship. For example, an agency may be required to provide sign 
language interpreters, readers, assistance with note taking or 
photocopying, or permission to use a job coach as a reasonable 
accommodation.\76\ However, provision of PAS that are needed on the 
job, such as assistance with eating or using the restroom, is not 
considered a reasonable accommodation under the ADA or as a matter of 
nondiscrimination under Section 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 29 CFR pt. 1630, app. 1630.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed to place this obligation on agencies as an 
affirmative action requirement under Section 501. Paragraph (d)(5) of 
the proposed rule required agencies to provide PAS, such as assistance 
with removing and putting on clothing, eating, and using the restroom, 
to employees who need them because of a disability during work hours 
and job-related travel, unless doing so would impose undue hardship. It 
further provided that agencies are permitted to assign PAS providers to 
more than one individual with a disability, and to require them to do 
non-PAS tasks as time permits. In addition, the NPRM requested public 
input on (a) whether the description of PAS in the proposed paragraph 
was adequate; (b) whether the requirement to provide PAS should be kept 
in the Final Rule; (c) whether individuals who provide PAS should be 
assigned to particular individuals or, instead, asked to provide 
services to multiple individuals as needed; and (d) whether the agency 
should be allowed to assign other tasks to PAS providers when no 
personal assistance is needed.
    Many commenters responding to the question of whether the NPRM's 
description of PAS was adequate complained that the description was 
vague. Commenters offered various suggestions for making the 
description more precise--some stated that it

[[Page 665]]

should include additional examples, one stated that it should exclude 
medical services, one stated that the list of examples should be 
exhaustive, and two stated that the paragraph should incorporate 
language used in the definition of PAS given elsewhere in the 
Rehabilitation Act.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See 29 U.S.C. 705(28) (``The term `personal assistance 
services' means a range of services, provided by one or more 
persons, designed to assist an individual with a disability to 
perform daily living activities on or off the job that the 
individual would typically perform if the individual did not have a 
disability. Such services shall be designed to increase the 
individual's control in life and ability to perform everyday 
activities on or off the job.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has chosen the last option. The term ``personal 
assistance services,'' as it is used in the disability community, 
expresses an open-ended concept. It is therefore not possible to 
provide an exhaustive list of examples, and addition of a few examples 
will necessarily fail to capture the full meaning. New paragraph (a)(5) 
thus provides that the term ``personal assistance services'' means 
``assistance with performing activities of daily living that an 
individual would typically perform if he or she did not have a 
disability, and that is not otherwise required as a reasonable 
accommodation, including, for example, assistance with removing and 
putting on clothing, eating, and using the restroom.'' New paragraph 
(a)(4) defines the related term ``personal assistance service 
provider'' to mean ``an employee or independent contractor whose 
primary job functions include provision of personal assistance 
services.''
    Comments on whether the PAS requirement should be kept in the Final 
Rule were mixed. Many disability advocacy organizations and individuals 
strongly favored the requirement, emphasizing that a lack of PAS in the 
workplace poses a major barrier to employment for some individuals with 
disabilities. Other commenters objected. Some argued that the 
associated costs would be too high. Some argued that the Commission 
lacks the authority to impose the requirement. Others objected that 
compliance with the requirement would be extremely difficult or 
impossible because, for example, it would require agencies to violate 
appropriations and antideficiency laws; require them to coordinate with 
local nursing boards; lead to the depletion of reasonable accommodation 
funds; result in reduced hiring of individuals with disabilities; 
conflict with merit systems principles and veterans' preference rules, 
at least to the extent that it would require agencies to hire providers 
chosen by the individuals who need them; require agencies to provide 
services in a variety of locations; or lead to the hiring and retention 
of unqualified employees.
    The Final Rule retains the requirement to provide PAS during work 
hours \78\ and job-related travel, absent undue hardship, and further 
clarifies in revised paragraph (d)(5)(iii) that agencies may not take 
adverse actions against job applicants and employees on the basis of 
their need, or perceived need, for PAS. Public comments from advocacy 
organizations and individuals confirm that lack of PAS in the workplace 
and/or the fear of losing PAS provided by means-tested assistance 
programs are stubborn and persistent barriers to employment for 
individuals with certain disabilities. For many individuals with 
targeted disabilities such as paralysis or cerebral palsy, full 
participation in the workplace is impossible without PAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Work hours include time that an employee is teleworking, 
whether the telework is part of an agency telework program available 
to all employees or is being provided as a reasonable accommodation. 
The Commission sees no legal reason to treat the provision of PAS 
for workers who are teleworking any differently from the provision 
of other services by individuals as a reasonable accommodations, 
such as sign language interpreters and readers. Determinations of 
whether PAS can be provided to an employee who is teleworking 
without undue hardship should be made on a case-by-case basis, as 
are decisions about reasonable accommodations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is not persuaded by the objections raised by 
commenters. First, the issue of cost is addressed in the section on 
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 below. Second, we disagree that the 
Commission lacks authority to impose the requirement. As explained 
above, the Commission has Section 501 rulemaking authority under 
Section 505 and Executive Order 12067, and, having found that its prior 
regulatory and subregulatory guidance was not sufficiently advancing 
the employment of qualified individuals with disabilities, here 
exercises its authority to strengthen the regulations implementing the 
Section 501 affirmative action requirement.\79\ Because public comments 
confirm that a lack of PAS in the workplace is a persistent barrier to 
employment for individuals with certain significant disabilities, one 
of the ways in which the regulation is being strengthened is by 
requiring agencies to provide PAS to individuals who need them during 
work hours and job-related travel, absent undue hardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See supra notes 37-44 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, as to the arguments that compliance would be extremely 
difficult or impossible, the Commission notes as it did in the preamble 
to the proposed rule that several federal agencies currently provide 
PAS on a voluntary basis, and have been doing so for decades without 
any of the negative consequences imagined by commenters.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ The Commission provides personal assistant services to 
employees with disabilities who require them. The Department of 
Labor, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of 
Justice's Civil Rights Division also provide workplace PAS for 
employees with disabilities. See Department of Labor statement of 
work on providing personal assistance services as a reasonable 
accommodation for qualified Department of Labor employees with 
disabilities (2014) [hereinafter DOL statement] (on file with the 
Commission); Dep't of Transp., Disability Resource Center Services 
Handbook (Nov. 2014), http://www.transportation.gov/individuals/disability/disability-resource-center-drc-services-handbook 
(providing guidance to the Department of Transportation on meeting 
its obligations regarding the retention and promotion of individuals 
with disabilities by providing personal assistance and other 
services); Civil Rights Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Reasonable 
Accommodation Manual A.2.5 (n.d.) (on file with the Commission) 
(providing that the Civil Rights Division will provide part-time 
personal care attendants at work or on official travel when 
necessary and otherwise reasonable).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Responses to the question of whether PAS providers should be 
assigned to single individuals or to multiple individuals were mixed. 
Some stated that providers should be assigned to single individuals 
because (a) PAS are often required on very short notice, (b) receipt of 
PAS from multiple providers is likely to make the individual with a 
disability feel uncomfortable, and (c) services are improved if the 
provider is familiar with the individual's needs. Others stated that 
agencies should be given maximum flexibility. Commenters were more 
uniformly in favor of allowing agencies to assign non-PAS tasks to PAS 
providers, as long as the PAS-related assignments were given higher 
priority. One commenter disagreed, arguing that assignment of both PAS 
and non-PAS tasks to a single individual would create practical 
problems in contracting, creation of position descriptions, and 
performance assessment.
    In both respects, the Final Rule grants flexibility to agencies in 
revised paragraph (d)(5)(ii). Again the Commission looks to actual 
practice for guidance. Federal agencies have used a variety of models 
for providing PAS to equal effect. The Commission, for example, has 
hired federal employees to provide PAS to individuals with disabilities 
on a one-to-one basis, whereas the Department of Labor has contracted 
for a pool of qualified personnel to provide PAS and other services to 
multiple employees.\81\ Moreover, if an agency finds that a

[[Page 666]]

particular approach is impracticable or does not meet employees' needs, 
the paragraph permits the agency to adopt an alternative approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ DOL statement, supra note 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other comments on the requirement raised the following issues:
     Eligibility. Some stated that an agency should only be 
required to provide PAS to individuals who are qualified to perform 
their jobs. Although the Commission does not believe that the proposed 
paragraph provided otherwise, it has been revised to state that 
agencies are required to provide PAS only if they ``would, together 
with any reasonable accommodations required under [29 CFR] part 1630 . 
. ., enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or 
her position.'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 29 CFR 1630.203(5)(i)(B), as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters stated that an agency should only be required to 
provide PAS to individuals who have targeted disabilities. As discussed 
in the NPRM, the Commission believes that individuals who do not have 
targeted disabilities will not require PAS in order to participate in 
the workplace.\83\ The paragraph has therefore been revised in the 
manner suggested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Affirmative Action for Individuals with Disabilities in the 
Federal Government, 81 FR 9123, 9134 n.101 (Feb. 24, 2016) (to be 
codified at 29 CFR 1614.203, .601(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Additional services. Some commenters stated that the 
paragraph should require agencies to provide additional services to 
employees with disabilities, including help with getting to and from 
work, identifying transportation options and accessing transportation, 
assistance with becoming familiar with surroundings, and 
``informational and navigational awareness, as well as lightweight 
communication.'' The commenters did not, however, cite to any studies 
or other objective sources establishing that such services would 
significantly improve employment of individuals with disabilities, or 
to any data on which to base an estimate of the economic impact of the 
requirement. The Commission has not incorporated these suggestions.
    A significant number of commenters stated that the Rule should 
require agencies to permit employees with disabilities to use job 
coaches and other forms of supported employment paid for by outside 
sources. The Commission strongly endorses the use of supported 
employment. Indeed, permission to use a job coach or other forms of 
supported employment is a reasonable accommodation that may be required 
if such a person needs those services to perform the essential 
functions of a position and if providing those services does not impose 
an undue hardship on the agency.\84\ As explained above, however, the 
Commission believes that it would be inappropriate to provide guidance 
on nondiscrimination requirements applicable to federal agencies, as 
well as to private and state and local government employers, in a 
regulation that applies to the affirmative action obligations of 
federal agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See 29 CFR pt. 1630, app. 1630.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Undue hardship exception. One commenter stated that 
agencies should not be required to establish undue hardship in order to 
deny a request for PAS, because, given the fact that they typically 
have very large budgets, agencies ``will have very limited ability to 
deny such requests . . . regardless of the nature of the request.'' The 
commenter did not suggest an alternative standard.
    The Commission disagrees with the commenter's characterization. 
First, the paragraph does not require agencies to provide PAS to 
individuals who request them ``regardless of the nature of the 
request.'' The paragraph only requires agencies to provide personal 
assistants, who will assist the employee with eating, using the 
restroom, and similar activities to individuals who need them because 
of a targeted disability; it does not require agencies to provide 
services that the individual does not need in order to participate in 
the workplace, or services that are needed for reasons other than 
disability. Second, agencies may be able to establish undue hardship 
for reasons other than cost.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and 
Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (2002), 
https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html#undue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Selection and evaluation of personal assistance service 
provider. Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require PAS 
providers to meet certain qualification standards, such as those 
imposed by OPM for all government employees and specific standards 
based on experience and training. Others stated that an agency should 
be required to consult with individuals who receive PAS during their 
providers' performance reviews.
    These requirements were not incorporated into the Rule because they 
primarily concern OPM functions. EEOC is not in the best position to 
determine what qualifications PAS providers have to possess, and we do 
not wish to limit unduly the choices of employees who may want to work 
with a PAS provider who may not necessarily possess specific 
certifications or credentials. This is similar to the approach the 
Commission has taken under the ADA with respect to sign language 
interpreters and readers provided as reasonable accommodations. 
However, the revised paragraph does provide that PAS must be provided 
by a personal assistance service provider, meaning an employee or 
independent contractor whose primary job functions include provision of 
personal assistance services at (d)(5)(ii).
    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require agencies 
to consider the preferences of individuals with disabilities when 
selecting their PAS providers. The Commission agrees and notes that 
this is the same principle that applies when an employer is choosing 
from among available accommodations.\86\ New paragraph (d)(5)(iv) 
requires agencies, when selecting someone to provide personal 
assistance services to a single individual, to give primary 
consideration to the individual's preferences to the extent permitted 
by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See 29 CFR pt. 1630, app. 1630.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Process for requesting PAS. Some commenters stated that 
the paragraph should require agencies to have written procedures for 
processing PAS requests, similar to the reasonable accommodation 
procedures required under paragraph (d)(4). Some stated more 
specifically that agencies should be permitted to require medical 
documentation, be required to use a centralized fund, or be required to 
consult with vocational rehabilitation agencies during the process.
    The Commission agrees that agencies should have procedures for 
processing requests for PAS. Paragraph (d)(5)(v) of the Final Rule 
requires agencies to adopt such procedures, and to make them available 
online and in written and accessible formats. Because the intent of the 
Rule is to require agencies to treat PAS requests like requests for 
reasonable accommodation, the paragraph further provides that agencies 
may satisfy the requirement by stating in their reasonable 
accommodation procedures that the process for requesting personal 
assistance services, the process for determining whether such services 
are required, and the agency's right to deny such requests when 
provision of the services would pose an undue hardship, are the same as 
for reasonable accommodations.

[[Page 667]]

1614.203(d)(6) and 1614.203(d)(7)(i) Utilization analysis and goals

    Paragraph (d)(7)(i) of the proposed rule required agencies to adopt 
the goal of achieving a 12% representation rate for people with 
disabilities at the GS-11 level \87\ and above, including the Senior 
Executive Service (SES); \88\ a 12% representation rate for people with 
disabilities at the GS-10 level and below; a 2% representation rate for 
individuals with targeted disabilities at the GS-11 level and above, 
including the SES; and a 2% representation rate for people with 
targeted disabilities at the GS-10 level and below. Paragraph (d)(6) 
required agencies to perform the workforce analysis necessary to 
determine whether these goals have been met annually, based on SF-256 
records, records of requests for reasonable accommodation, and records 
of appointments under hiring authorities that take disability into 
account. In addition, the NPRM asked for public input on whether the 
proposed goals were appropriate, and whether there are any data showing 
that the goals should be raised or lowered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Most federal employees are part of the General Schedule 
(GS) pay system. The General Schedule has fifteen grades--GS-1 
(lowest) to GS-15 (highest). See generally General Schedule 
Classification and Pay, Office of Pers. Mgmt., http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-systems/general-schedule/ (last 
visited Dec. 21, 2016).
    \88\ High-level leadership positions in the federal government 
are occupied by members of the SES. SES members have a different pay 
scale than employees who are part of the GS pay system. See 
generally Senior Executive Service: Leading America's Workforce, 
Office of Pers. Mgmt., http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/ (last visited Dec. 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received a small number of comments requesting 
clarification of the proposed goals. One commenter asked whether the 2% 
goals were intended to be sub-goals of the 12% goals, i.e., whether the 
individuals who are counted as individuals with targeted disabilities 
for purposes of determining whether a 2% goal has been met may also be 
counted as individuals with disabilities for purposes of determining 
whether a 12% goal has been met.
    The 2% goals are intended to be sub-goals. Disabilities that fall 
under the term ``targeted disability'' are a subset of those that fall 
under the term ``disability'' as defined under Section 501. Thus, any 
employee who has a targeted disability, and who therefore counts toward 
a 2% goal for individuals with targeted disabilities, will necessarily 
have a condition that meets the Section 501 definition of 
``disability,'' and will therefore also count toward the 12% goal for 
individuals with disabilities.
    Another commenter asked whether the fact that the NPRM proposed a 
12% goal for individuals with disabilities at the GS-11 level and 
above, and a 12% goal for individuals with disabilities at the GS-10 
level and below, meant that it proposed a 24% overall goal for 
individuals with disabilities. Similarly, the commenter wondered 
whether the 2% goals ``combined'' to create a 4% overall goal for 
individuals with targeted disabilities. Because each 12% and each 2% 
goal applies to a different segment of the workforce, the Rule does not 
impose goals of 24% and 4% overall.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Where X represents the total number of employees on the GS 
and SES scales and Y represents the total number of employees 
employed at the GS-10 level and below, 0.02(Y) + 0.02(X - Y) = 
0.02(X); 0.12(Y) + 0.12(X - Y) = 0.12(X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A small number of commenters stated that the goals should not be 
retained in the Final Rule because the proposed methods of measuring 
agencies' representation rates--SF-256 records, reasonable 
accommodation records, and documentation relating to appointment of 
individuals under hiring authorities that take disability into 
account--are inaccurate. SF-256 data, according to commenters, are 
especially likely to underestimate representation rates for individuals 
with disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities because 
many employees are reluctant to disclose disabilities using this form. 
Some stated that a greater number of employees would self-disclose if, 
for example, the form did not ask the individual to indicate his or her 
specific type of disability, or if it included questions on topics 
other than disability.
    The Commission acknowledged in the NPRM that SF-256 data are likely 
to underestimate representation rates for individuals with disabilities 
and individuals with targeted disabilities, and, for that reason, used 
prior SF-256 data as a starting point when it developed the goals.\90\ 
As discussed, SF-256 data themselves (together with other data that 
agencies are permitted to use under (d)(6)) indicate that the federal 
government as a whole has achieved representation rates that are close 
to 12% for individuals with disabilities and 2% for individuals with 
targeted disabilities; actual representation rates may be much larger. 
The Commission also reminds agencies that they have the discretion to 
periodically request employees to respond to voluntary surveys updating 
their SF-256 information. If accompanied by an explanation of why self-
reporting is important, resurveying can enhance data accuracy. The 
Commission therefore is not persuaded that the proposed goals are 
overly burdensome due to problems of measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Affirmative Action for Individuals with Disabilities in the 
Federal Government, 81 FR 9123, 9128-29 (Feb. 24, 2016) (to be 
codified at 29 CFR 1614.203, .601(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Commission does acknowledge commenters' assertions 
that there may be ways to improve the accuracy of self-reported data, 
for example by asking individuals to indicate whether they have 
disabilities or targeted disabilities without asking for more detailed 
information. The Commission is not able to amend the SF-256, as 
suggested by some commenters, because OPM controls the content of the 
SF-256. Nor can the Commission require OPM to establish an 
``authoritative'' system for tracking disability information, as 
suggested by another commenter.
    Instead, the Final Rule allows, but does not require, agencies to 
collect disability information using forms other than the SF-256. 
Paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(A) has thus been amended to allow agencies to 
classify individuals for purposes of the workforce analysis based on 
``[t]he individual's self-identification as an individual with a 
disability or an individual with a targeted disability on a form, 
including but not limited to the Office of Personnel Management's 
Standard Form 256, which states that the information collected will be 
kept confidential and used only for statistical purposes, and that 
completion of the form is voluntary.'' \91\ The paragraph permits 
agencies to design their own forms or use existing forms as 
appropriate. For example, agencies are permitted to use the approach 
taken in EEOC's Applicant Flow Form. This form asks, among other 
things, whether the individual has a non-targeted disability. It does 
not, however, require the individual to identify which non-targeted 
disability he or she has.\92\ The Final Rule also

[[Page 668]]

makes conforming amendments to 29 CFR 1614.601(f) (discussed 
below).\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ The other records discussed in this paragraph will also be 
kept confidential, because they are subject to the Privacy Act. See 
5 U.S.C. 552a. Additionally, records relating to reasonable 
accommodation are subject to the ADA's confidentiality requirements, 
as incorporated. See 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(A) (imposing the 
requirements); 29 U.S.C. 791(f) (incorporating the requirements into 
Section 501); 29 CFR 1630.14(c) (implementing the requirements); 29 
CFR pt. 1630, app. 1630.14(c) (discussing the requirements); 29 CFR 
1614.203(b) (incorporating the ADA regulations at 29 CFR pt. 1630 
into the Section 501 regulations).
    \92\ Applicant Flow Form, supra note 4, at 3.
    \93\ One commenter stated that current regulations at 29 CFR 
part 1630 should also be amended, because those regulations 
generally prohibit agencies from asking disability-related 
questions, as would be required under (d)(6). The Commission 
disagrees. The anti-discrimination regulations permit agencies (and 
employers generally) to ask disability-related questions for 
purposes of engaging in affirmative action for individuals with 
disabilities. Cf. Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Shiu, 30 F. 
Supp. 3d 25, 37-38 (D.D.C. 2014) (holding that the ADA does not 
prohibit federal contractors from inviting job applicants to self-
identify as individuals with disabilities pursuant to regulations 
implementing the affirmative action requirement imposed on federal 
contractors by Section 503), aff'd, 773 F.3d 257 (D.C. Cir. 2014); 
Letter from Peggy R. Mastroianni, Legal Counsel, EEOC, to Patricia A 
Shiu, Director, Office of Fed. Contract Compliance Programs, Dep't 
of Labor (Aug. 8, 2013), http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/section503.htm (follow ``EEOC Opinion on the Invitation to Self-
Identify'' hyperlink) (discussing job applicants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter argued that the goals should be eliminated for 
agencies that have limited opportunities to use the Schedule A hiring 
authority for persons with certain disabilities, and for small agencies 
that typically draw from a small applicant pool. The commenter also 
argued that small agencies should be exempted because it is sometimes 
possible to determine which employees within the agency have a 
disability based solely on aggregate data, which, according to the 
commenter, may result in ``per se violations of [the confidentiality 
requirements of] the Rehabilitation Act.''
    The Final Rule does not include exemptions for agencies that have 
limited opportunities to use the Schedule A hiring authority for 
persons with certain disabilities or for small agencies. The Commission 
believes that all agencies are able to take steps to improve employment 
opportunities for individuals with disabilities, including targeted 
disabilities. Agencies that have limited opportunities to use the 
Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities may 
still, for example, take steps to improve the application process as 
required under (d)(1)(ii); adopt advancement programs as required under 
(d)(1)(iii), and take other actions recommended under (d)(7)(ii) to the 
extent permitted by law. Agencies that typically draw from a small 
applicant pool may take steps to expand the pool, as required under 
(d)(1)(i). These and other steps specified throughout paragraph (d) are 
all that the Rule requires of an agency that fails to achieve a goal--
paragraph (f)(2) (discussed below) provides that ``failure to achieve a 
goal set forth in paragraph (d)(7) of the Rule, by itself, is not 
grounds for disapproval unless the Plan fails to require the agency to 
take specific steps that are reasonably designed to achieve the goal.''
    The Commission does not see how compliance with the goal 
requirements could lead to ``per se violations of the Rehabilitation 
Act.'' The commenter appears to have assumed that the Rule requires 
agencies to make detailed, grade-level-by-grade-level disability 
information available to the public. It does not. The Rule only 
requires agencies to publish representation rates for people with 
disabilities and people with targeted disabilities in two broadly 
defined groups. Moreover, nothing in the Rule requires an individual 
with a disability to self-identify as such; if an individual does not 
wish to disclose his or her disability status, he or she need not fill 
out the SF-256 or similar forms.
    One commenter stated that agencies should be allowed to set their 
own goals. After the ANPRM public comment period, the Commission 
decided to adopt government-wide goals in the proposed rule.\94\ The 
commenter did not provide any basis on which to overturn that decision. 
Upon further consideration, the Commission has determined that the 
proposed government-wide approach continues to be the most appropriate 
one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See Affirmative Action for Individuals with Disabilities in 
the Federal Government, 81 FR at 9128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters responding to the question of whether the proposed 
goals were appropriate stated that they were too low. These commenters 
generally argued that, because existing representation rates for 
individuals with disabilities and individuals with targeted 
disabilities are already close to 12% and 2% respectively, the proposed 
goals would merely ``maintain the status quo.'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ For example, commenters cited a recent OPM report finding 
that 14.64% of federal employees have reportable disabilities, 18.8% 
of federal employees at the GS-10 level and below have disabilities, 
12.6% of federal employees at the GS-11 level and above have 
disabilities, 1.18% of federal employees have targeted disabilities, 
1.91% of federal employees at the GS-10 level and below have 
targeted disabilities, and 0.8% of federal employees at the GS-11 
level and above have targeted disabilities, see Office of Pers. 
Mgmt., Report on the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in 
the Federal Executive Branch: Fiscal Year 2014, 25 (Oct. 9, 2015), 
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion/reports/disability-report-fy2014.pdf [hereinafter 2014 Report], and 
a recent survey indicating that 13.5% of federal employees have 
disabilities, Governmentwide Unweighted Results: Demographic, Items 
85-98, Office of Pers. Mgmt., http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2014/Reports/ResponsePCT.asp?AGY=ALL&SECT=8 (last visited Dec. 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission disagrees that the proposed goals would merely 
``maintain the status quo.'' Although it is true that the federal 
government as a whole has achieved representation rates of close to 12% 
and 2%, many individual agencies have not.\96\ For these agencies, 
meeting the goals would represent significant improvement. Further, 
because the goals apply at both higher and lower levels of employment, 
agencies that employ a disproportionately high number of individuals 
with disabilities in lower paying positions would also see significant 
improvement by meeting the goals. As noted in the NPRM, the 
representation rates for individuals with disabilities and individuals 
with targeted disabilities are significantly lower at the GS-11 level 
and above than at the GS-10 level and below.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See, e.g., 2014 Report, supra note 95, at 10.
    \97\ See id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the commenters failed to identify any data on which 
the Commission could reasonably base higher goals. Many commenters 
simply picked numbers without justification. Some commenters stated 
that the Commission should ``look to those agencies that have done the 
best job of employing people with disabilities, as well as workforce 
data'' to set the goals, but provided no explanation as to how this 
could reasonably be done, and instead chose goals that did not appear 
to be connected either with agency benchmarks or with workforce 
data.\98\ One commenter stated that the goals should be based on census 
data. However, the census definition of ``disability'' matches neither 
the Section 501 definition of ``disability'' nor the definition of 
``targeted disability'' under paragraph (a).\99\ Census data, 
therefore, are inapposite. Because commenters failed to identify any 
reasonable alternatives, and because the Commission believes that the 
12% and 2% goals are based on the best available data, the Final Rule 
retains goals of 12% for individuals with disabilities and 2% for 
individuals with targeted disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ These commenters recommended goals of ``at least'' 15% for 
people with disabilities and 4% for people with targeted 
disabilities.
    \99\ The ACS collects disability data by asking a series of 
questions such as whether, due to a physical, mental, or emotional 
problem, the person has ``serious difficulty'' hearing, seeing (even 
with glasses), remembering, concentrating, or making decisions, 
walking or climbing stairs, bathing or dressing, and/or doing 
errands alone. See American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census 
Bureau, https://www.census.gov/people/disability/methodology/acs.html (last visited Dec. 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that the goals should be extended to 
employees who are on neither the GS nor the SES scale. We agree. 
However, to avoid the difficulties inherent in establishing 
``equivalencies'' across differing pay

[[Page 669]]

scales, the Commission has decided to classify non-GS employees using a 
simple pay cutoff. The revised paragraph thus requires agencies to 
adopt 12% and 2% goals for ``employees at the GS-11 level and above, 
together with employees who are not paid under the General Schedule but 
who have salaries equal to or greater than employees at the GS-11, step 
1 \100\ level in the Washington, DC locality'' \101\ and ``employees at 
the GS-10 level and below, together with employees who are not paid 
under the General Schedule but who have salaries less than employees at 
the GS-11, step 1 level in the Washington, DC locality.'' Express 
reference to the SES was removed from the paragraph because SES 
employees are included in the category of ``employees who are not paid 
under the General Schedule but who have salaries equal to or greater 
than employees at the GS-11, step 1 level in the Washington, DC 
locality.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Pay rates for employees at a given GS level depend on the 
within-grade level, or ``step,'' of the employee, which ranges 
between one and ten, and on the geographic location of the employee. 
See generally General Schedule Classification and Pay, supra note 
87.
    \101\ The rate of pay for employees on the GS and SES scales is 
determined by adding a ``locality adjustment'' to a base rate. See 
generally Pay & Leave: Salaries & Wages, Office of Pers. Mgmt., 
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2016/general-schedule/ (last visited Dec. 21, 2016) (discussing 
alternative dispute resolution). Washington, DC is currently in the 
``Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA region.'' 
Id. The Rule refers to the ``Washington, DC locality'' in the event 
that the locality is renamed or defined differently in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that the Rule should impose separate goals 
for each individual grade level, or for each individual job series and 
grade level. The Commission does not believe that the additional burden 
on agencies of meeting such goals would substantially promote the 
hiring, retention, and advancement of individuals with disabilities and 
individuals with targeted disabilities. For example, we see no reason 
to require agencies to have the same percentage of individuals with 
disabilities at both the GS-4 and GS-5 levels, and we are unsure what 
inference should be drawn from the fact that an agency employs a 
disproportionately low number of individuals at the GS-12 level, for 
example, but not at the GS-13 level. Of course, significant disparities 
in the distribution of individuals with disabilities or individuals 
with targeted disabilities within the pay grouping may raise concerns. 
For example, an agency that meets goals for the employment of people 
with targeted disabilities in both pay groupings, but that employs most 
such individuals at the GS-1 through GS-4 and GS-11 through GS-12 
levels, is probably insufficiently attentive to its obligations to 
provide advancement opportunities. However, absent evidence at this 
time that agencies would attempt to circumvent their affirmative action 
obligations in this way, the Rule continues to group employees 
according to whether they are employed at higher or lower levels, 
rather than according to individual grade level and job series, for 
purposes of meeting the (d)(7)(i) goals.
    Two commenters stated that federal jobs ``limit[ing] advancement, 
or segregat[ing] federal workers on the basis of disability (including 
segregation into separate work areas or separate lines of 
advancement)'' should not count toward achievement of the goals. We 
assume that the commenters are referring to positions that ``limit, 
segregate, or classify a job applicant or employee in a way that 
adversely affects his or her employment opportunities or status on the 
basis of disability'' in violation of Section 501's nondiscrimination 
requirements.\102\ Although we agree with the general principle that an 
agency should not benefit from employing individuals with disabilities 
if the agency also discriminates against them, we believe that the 
appropriate response in these cases is to challenge the discriminatory 
behavior under 29 CFR 1614.106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(1); 29 CFR 1630.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that the Rule should establish a deadline 
for achieving the goals. The Commission disagrees. As noted in the 
NPRM, there are many reasons why it may take some agencies more time 
than others to meet the utilization goals, such as budgetary 
constraints (including hiring freezes), the number of additional 
individuals with targeted disabilities that would have to be hired to 
achieve the goals, and the nature of certain jobs within an agency's 
workforce that may include valid physical standards that individuals 
with certain disabilities may not be able to meet.
    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require agencies 
to adopt other types of goals in addition to, or instead of, 
representation rate goals--
     Hiring and promotion goals. Some commenters stated that 
certain percentages of each agency's new hires should be, and certain 
percentages of each agency's promotions should be given to, individuals 
with disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities. As 
applied to agencies that underperform with respect to employment of 
individuals with disabilities and individuals with targeted 
disabilities, hiring and retention goals do not impose more stringent 
requirements than the corresponding representation rate goals. They 
were therefore not added.
     Retention rate goals. One commenter stated that agencies 
should be required to adopt the goal of having a retention rate for 
employees who were appointed under the Schedule A hiring authority for 
persons with certain disabilities that is equal to or greater than the 
retention rate for other employees. The Commission lacks any data 
establishing what the retention rate for individuals who were appointed 
under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain 
disabilities should be. Further, a function of paragraphs (d)(8)(iv) 
and (d)(8)(v), requiring agencies to keep detailed records on 
individuals who were appointed under the Schedule A hiring authority 
for persons with certain disabilities, and paragraph (d)(1)(iii), 
requiring agencies to report data regarding such individuals, is to 
ensure that both individuals within the agency and the Commission will 
be alerted if the agency is experiencing problems with retention. The 
Commission concludes that a separate goal is unnecessary.
     Goals for utilization of supported employment. Some 
commenters stated that the Rule should impose goals for hiring and 
employment of individuals receiving supported employment services. The 
commenter cited no evidence that such goals would eliminate a 
significant barrier to employment for a large number of individuals 
with disabilities, and neither stated what percentage the goal should 
be nor provided any data on which to base the goal. However, in light 
of the commenters' observation that there is an evidence base showing 
that supported employment services are an effective way to maintain 
employment for many individuals with disabilities, provision of such 
services has been added as an example of a strategy that an agency may 
use to increase the number of employees with disabilities and targeted 
disabilities in paragraph (d)(7)(ii), discussed below.

1614.203(d)(7)(ii) Progression Toward Goals

    Proposed paragraph (d)(7)(ii) required agencies that fail to meet 
one or more goals required under paragraph (d)(7)(i) to take specific 
steps that are reasonably designed to gradually increase the number of 
employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities, examples of

[[Page 670]]

which included increased use of hiring authorities that take disability 
into account; consideration of disability or targeted disability status 
as a positive factor in hiring, promotion, or assignment decisions, to 
the extent permitted by law; additional outreach and recruitment 
efforts; adoption of training, internship, and mentoring programs for 
individuals with disabilities; and disability-related training for all 
employees. Agencies interested in the last example are encouraged to 
review the components of effective harassment prevention training set 
forth in the report issued by Commissioners Feldblum and Lipnic in June 
2016.\103\ For reasons indicated in the section immediately above, 
``[i]ncreased efforts to hire and retain individuals who require 
supported employment because of a disability, who have retained the 
services of a job coach at their own expense or at the expense of a 
third party, and who may be given permission to use the job coach 
during work hours as a reasonable accommodation without imposing undue 
hardship on the agency'' has been added as an example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Chai R. Feldblum & Victoria A. Lipnic, supra note 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asked whether the paragraph requires agencies that do 
not meet the goals to hire individuals with disabilities or individuals 
with targeted disabilities who are not qualified for the job, or who 
are less qualified than other candidates. It does not. Hiring 
authorities that take disability into account do not provide agencies 
with a means of hiring individuals who are unqualified, and agencies 
are not required to hire individuals who are unqualified in order to, 
for example, provide disability-related training for all employees, 
engage in additional outreach and recruitment efforts, or adopt 
training, internship, or mentoring programs for individuals with 
disabilities.
    Some commenters stated that agencies should always be required to 
consider disability status and targeted disability status as positive 
factors in hiring, promotion, and employment decisions, regardless of 
whether the agency has failed to meet a goal. Other commenters stated 
that certain kinds of disability-related training, such as awareness 
and anti-stigma training, should also be mandatory. The purpose of 
these efforts is to address problems of underrepresentation. To the 
extent that an agency is meeting its (d)(7)(i) goals, the Commission is 
without reason to believe that such efforts are necessary.

1614.203(d)(8) Recordkeeping

    This paragraph of the Final Rule requires that each agency keep, 
and make available to the Commission upon request,\104\ records of: (i) 
The number of job applications received from individuals with 
disabilities, and the number of individuals with disabilities who were 
hired by the agency; (ii) the number of job applications received from 
individuals with targeted disabilities, and the number of individuals 
with targeted disabilities who were hired by the agency; (iii) all 
rescissions of conditional job offers, demotions, and terminations 
taken against applicants or employees as a result of medical 
examinations or inquiries; (iv) all agency employees hired under the 
Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities, and 
each such employee's date of hire, entering grade level, probationary 
status, and current grade level; (v) the number of employees appointed 
under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain 
disabilities who have been converted to career or career-conditional 
appointments in the competitive service each year, and the number of 
such employees who were terminated prior to being converted to a career 
or career-conditional appointment in the competitive service each year; 
and (vi) details regarding all requests for reasonable accommodation 
the agency receives. Aside from minor stylistic and terminological 
differences, it is identical to paragraph (d)(8) of the proposed 
rule.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ The records will be subject to all applicable record 
retention requirements, including the record retention requirements 
overseen by NARA. See, e.g., Records Management, supra note 59.
    \105\ The records required under this paragraph are subject to 
the confidentiality requirements of the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. 
552a. Records relating to reasonable accommodation are also subject 
to the confidentiality requirements imposed by the ADA, as 
incorporated. See 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(A) (imposing the 
requirements); 29 U.S.C. 791(f) (incorporating the requirements into 
Section 501); 29 CFR 1630.14(c) (implementing the requirements); 29 
CFR pt. 1630, app. 1630.14(c) (discussing the requirements); 29 CFR 
1614.203(b) (incorporating the implementing regulations into the 
regulations implementing Section 501).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One federal agency stated that the paragraph should not require 
agencies to keep records of all reasonable accommodation requests 
because, in the agency's opinion, it is more efficient to handle some 
requests ``informally.'' The commenter's position runs counter to 
longstanding federal policy. Executive Order 13164 instructs agencies 
to ensure that their systems of recordkeeping ``track the processing of 
requests for reasonable accommodation,'' \106\ and guidance on the 
Executive Order provides that the records must (among other things) 
allow the agency to identify ``the number and types of reasonable 
accommodations that have been requested in the application process and 
whether those requests have been granted or denied; . . . the number 
and types of reasonable accommodation for each job, by agency 
component, that have been approved, and the number and types that have 
been denied; . . . [and] the amount of time taken to process each 
request for reasonable accommodation . . . .'' \107\ Such records are a 
necessary component of an agency's efforts to ensure that the agency is 
processing requests for reasonable accommodation in accordance with the 
nondiscrimination requirements of Section 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Executive Order No. 13164, supra note 14.
    \107\ See 13164 Guidance, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that the paragraph should require agencies 
to develop systems that make their employment data available to 
vocational rehabilitation agencies ``in real time.'' The commenter 
failed to clarify how such a system would work, but, to the extent that 
it would grant non-agency access to agency personnel files, it is 
likely to create significant problems of privacy and data security.

1614.203(e) Reporting

    The paragraph requires each agency to submit to the Commission, on 
an annual basis, a report that contains a copy of its Plan; the results 
of its two most recent workforce analyses performed pursuant to 
paragraph (d)(6) of the Rule showing the percentages of individuals 
with disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities in both of 
the specified pay groups; the number of individuals appointed under the 
Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities 
during the previous year; the total number of employees whose 
employment at the agency began by appointment under the Schedule A 
hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities; and an 
explanation of any changes that were made to the Plan since the prior 
submission. The paragraph also requires agencies to make all 
information submitted to the Commission pursuant to this requirement 
available to the public by, at a minimum, posting a copy of the 
submission on its public Web site and providing a means by which 
members of the public may request copies of the submission in 
accessible formats. Aside from minor stylistic differences, it is 
identical to paragraph (e) of the proposed rule.

[[Page 671]]

    Several commenters stated that the proposed reporting requirements 
overlapped with those of MD-715, and therefore that, in order to avoid 
redundancies, MD-715 should be amended. As stated in the NPRM, the 
Commission intends to modify the requirements of MD-715 after final 
promulgation of this Rule to eliminate redundancies.
    Some commenters stated that the paragraph should require agencies 
to report (and, if not already required to do so, keep records of) 
additional information, including, for example, the number of 
individuals appointed under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons 
with certain disabilities who were subjected to removal or offered 
voluntary resignation; the representation rates for individuals with 
disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities broken down by 
grade level; a list of the disability organizations with which the 
agency maintains partnerships; the retention and performance rates for 
employees with disabilities and employees with targeted disabilities; 
the numbers of employees classified as having disabilities on the basis 
of conditions that developed pre-hire, that developed post-hire, or 
were service-related; and the number of individuals appointed under 
each veterans' authority who identified themselves as having a targeted 
disability. The Commission is not persuaded that it is necessary to 
report information at this level of detail in order to determine 
whether an agency has satisfied its Section 501 obligation to engage in 
affirmative action for individuals with disabilities.

1614.203(f) Standards for Approval and Disapproval of Plans

    Paragraph (f) of the proposed rule provided that the Commission 
will (1) approve an agency Plan if it determines that the Plan, as 
implemented, meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of the 
rule, and (2) disapprove a Plan if it determines that it, as 
implemented, does not meet those requirements. The paragraph further 
clarified that failure to achieve a goal set forth in paragraph 
(d)(8)(i), by itself, is not grounds for disapproval unless the Plan 
fails to require the agency to take specific steps that are reasonably 
designed to achieve the goal in the future. Having received no 
objections, the Commission adopts the paragraph in the Final Rule 
unchanged.

1614.601(f) EEO Group Statistics

    Section 1614.601 requires each agency to establish a system to 
collect and maintain accurate demographic information about its 
employees, and paragraph 1614.601(f) specifies how agencies are to 
gather disability data. As explained above, paragraphs (d)(6)(ii) and 
(d)(6)(iii) specify how agencies are to gather disability data for 
purposes of the workforce analyses required under (d)(6)(i). In order 
to avoid any conflict between sections 1614.203 and 1614.601, paragraph 
1614.601(f) has been amended to provide that ``[d]ata on disabilities 
shall be collected using a method permitted under Sec.  
1614.203(d)(6)(ii) and Sec.  1614.203(d)(6)(iii).'' The revised 
paragraph imposes no new obligations on federal agencies.

Executive Order 12866 \108\ and Executive Order 13563 \109\ (Regulatory 
Planning and Review)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Executive Order No. 12866, 3 CFR 638 (1993), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/eo12866.pdf.
    \109\ Executive Order No. 13563, 3 CFR 215 (2011), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/eo12866/eo13563_01182011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with 
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. This Rule has been 
designated a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget.
    Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to submit a regulatory 
impact analysis for those regulatory actions that are ``economically 
significant'' within the meaning of section 3(f)(1).\110\ A regulatory 
action is economically significant under section 3(f)(1) if it is 
anticipated (1) to ``[h]ave an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more,'' or (2) to ``adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities.'' \111\ Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 
principles established by Executive Order 12866, and further emphasizes 
the need to reduce regulatory burden to the extent feasible and 
permitted by law.\112\ It directs agencies to propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its cost (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to 
quantify); to tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives; and to 
select, from among alternative regulatory approaches, including the 
alternative of not regulating, those approaches that maximize net 
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health 
and safety, and other advantages, distributive impacts, and equity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Executive Order 12866 refers to ``those matters identified 
as, or determined by the Administrator of [the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs] to be, a significant regulatory action 
within the scope of section 3(f)(1).'' Executive Order No. 12866, 
supra note 108. The Office of Management and Budget states that 
``Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to conduct a regulatory 
analysis for economically significant regulatory actions as defined 
by Section 3(f)(1).'' Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Circular A-4 (Sept., 
2003), http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
    \111\ Executive Order No. 12866, supra note 108.
    \112\ Executive Order No. 13563, supra note 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Commission has concluded that the existing 
practice of explaining Section 501's affirmative action obligations 
through management directives and sub-regulatory guidance,\113\ and not 
through regulation,\114\ has failed to sufficiently advance the 
employment of qualified individuals with disabilities. Detailed 
regulations are necessary in order to ensure that the obligations have, 
and are recognized to have, the force of law. Moreover, the Rule will 
make it easier for agencies to learn about their affirmative action 
obligations by presenting them all in one place, rather than in a range 
of documents, none of which are comprehensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See supra notes 10-23 and accompanying text.
    \114\ Prior paragraph 1614.203(a) stated only that the federal 
government shall be a ``model employer of individuals with 
disabilities,'' and that federal agencies shall ``give full 
consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified 
individuals with disabilities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EEOC has conducted an economic analysis of this Final Rule in 
accordance with EO 12866 and EO 13563. The analysis, revised in 
response to public comments and in light of the revisions discussed 
above, is presented below.
    Except where noted, we assume that work required under the Rule 
will be performed by GS-12 step 5 level employees in the Washington-
Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA region.\115\ The 
compensation rate for such employees,

[[Page 672]]

adjusted to include benefits, is $66.78 per hour \116\ or $143,968.85 
per year.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ In the NPRM, the Commission assumed that some of the 
required tasks would be performed by employees at the GS-14 level. 
On reflection, we believe that they are more likely to be performed 
by employees at the GS-12 level. The Commission realizes that not 
all of these tasks will be performed by GS-12 step 5 level employees 
in the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA 
region; the assumption is made purely for purposes of the economic 
analysis.
    \116\ See Office of Pers. Mgmt., Salary Table 2016-DCB: Hourly 
Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step, Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by 
Grade and Step (Jan. 2016), https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2016/DCB_h.pdf 
(providing hourly monetary compensation rates). To adjust for the 
cost of benefits, we divided the annual salary by 0.61. See 
Congressional Budget Office, Comparing the Compensation of Federal 
and Private-Sector Employees 9 (Jan. 2012), https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/01-30-FedPay_0.pdf [hereinafter Comparing 
Compensation] (reporting that the cost of providing benefits to 
federal workers averages between $15.50 and $24.70 per hour).
    \117\ See Office of Pers. Mgmt., Salary Table 2016-DCB: Annual 
Rates by Grade and Step (Jan. 2016), https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2016/DCB.pdf [hereinafter Annual Rates] (providing annual monetary 
compensation rates). To adjust for the cost of benefits, we divided 
the annual salary by 0.61. See Comparing Compensation, supra note 
116, at 9 (reporting that benefits account for 39% of the cost of 
total compensation for federal workers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions Imposing No Additional Burden

    The NPRM stated that many of the requirements in the proposed rule 
would have no economic effect, because they did not impose new 
requirements or burdens on federal agencies--
     Proposed paragraph (a), which set forth definitions of key 
terms, imposed no substantive requirements.
     Proposed paragraph (b), which provided that Section 501 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and that the 
standards for determining whether Section 501 has been violated in a 
complaint alleging employment discrimination are the same standards 
applied under the ADA, merely revised paragraph (b) in the current 
regulations for clarity.
     Proposed paragraph (c), which required agencies to be 
model employers of individuals with disabilities, was identical to 
paragraph (a) of the current regulations.
     The requirement to adopt an affirmative action plan, in 
proposed paragraph (d), is imposed by Section 501.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ 29 U.S.C. 791(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii), which required agencies to 
take steps to ensure that individuals with disabilities have sufficient 
advancement opportunities, provided guidance on how to fulfill existing 
requirements rather than imposing new ones.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See, e.g., 29 CFR 1614.102(a)(10), (a)(11), (a)(13), 
(b)(1); Promoting Employment, supra note 21; 13164 Guidance, supra 
note 15; MD-715, supra note 16. Indeed, the Commission anticipated 
that the additional guidance contained in the proposed rule, in the 
form of helpful examples and suggestions, would reduce agency burden 
by making it easier to satisfy the existing requirements. However, 
because the Commission did not have any data upon which to base an 
estimate of time saved, it did not quantify the benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The requirements of proposed paragraphs (d)(3)(i) 
(requiring written reasonable accommodation procedures) and (d)(3)(iii) 
(requiring agencies to provide individuals who have been denied a 
reasonable accommodation with written notice of the reasons for the 
denial) were taken from MD-715, Executive Order 13164, and existing 
agency guidance.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See MD-715, supra note 16; Executive Order No. 13164, 
supra note 14; 13164 Guidance, supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The recordkeeping requirements of proposed paragraph 
(d)(8), with the exception of the requirements imposed by (d)(8)(iii) 
and (d)(8)(iv) (discussed below), were taken from MD-715.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See MD-715, supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The requirement to submit a Plan to the Commission for 
approval on an annual basis, found in proposed paragraph (e)(1), is 
imposed by Section 501.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 29 U.S.C. 791(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received no objections to this aspect of the 
economic analysis, and none of the revisions made to these paragraphs 
impose additional requirements or burdens on federal agencies.

One-Time Costs

    The NPRM stated that the following aspects of the proposed rule, 
all of which required agencies to make certain information more readily 
available, imposed one-time compliance costs on federal agencies--
     Proposed paragraph (d)(2) required agencies to clarify in 
their harassment policies that disability-based harassment is 
prohibited.
     Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii) required agencies to inform 
all employees who are authorized to grant or deny requests for 
reasonable accommodation that all resources available to the agency as 
a whole are considered when determining whether a denial of reasonable 
accommodation based on cost is lawful.
     Proposed paragraph (d)(4) required agencies to make 
certain contact information available to employees.
     Proposed paragraph (e)(2) required agencies to make their 
Plans available to the public.
    The Commission estimated that agencies would need to spend 
approximately 5 hours performing these tasks, updating policies, and 
checking for compliance. The Commission received no objections to this 
estimate in the public comments. Revisions to these paragraphs, 
however, led us to adjust the estimate--
     Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii) has been revised to require 
agencies to inform all employees who are authorized to make hiring 
decisions, in addition to employees authorized to grant or deny 
requests for reasonable accommodation, that all resources available to 
the agency as a whole, excluding those designated by statute for a 
specific purpose that does not include reasonable accommodation, are 
considered when determining whether a denial of reasonable 
accommodation based on cost is lawful.
     Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii) has also been revised to 
require agencies to ensure that anyone authorized to grant or deny 
requests for reasonable accommodation or to make hiring decisions is 
aware of, and knows how to arrange for the use of, agency resources 
available to provide the accommodation.
     Proposed paragraph (d)(4) has been revised to require 
agencies to make information on substantive Section 508 and ABA rights 
available to employees, in addition to contact information.
    To account for the additional requirements, the Commission has 
doubled the estimate of the time needed to perform the necessary tasks, 
from 5 to 10 hours. Multiplying by the number of agencies covered by 
the Rule (218) \123\ and by the hourly compensation rate of $66.78 
yields a total estimated cost of $145,580.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The number of agencies covered by the requirements of MD-
715 varies from year to year. The number of agencies covered in 
Fiscal Year 2014 was 218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d)(1)(ii)

    The NPRM stated that proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii), requiring 
agencies to have sufficient staff to answer disability-related 
questions from members of the public, process requests for reasonable 
accommodations made by job applicants, accept and process applications 
for appointment under hiring authorities that take disability into 
account, and oversee any other disability-related hiring programs, 
would impose recurring costs on federal agencies. The Commission 
provided both a high and a low estimate. To calculate the high 
estimate, we assumed that each covered agency would need to hire at 
least one new employee to assist the existing agency staff in 
performing the required tasks. To calculate the low estimate, we 
assumed that approximately 10% of agencies, or 22 agencies, would need 
to hire a new employee. Using the updated annual

[[Page 673]]

compensation rate of $143,968.85, we multiply by the total number of 
covered agencies (218) to arrive at a high estimate of $31,385,209.30 
per year, and by 22 to arrive at a low estimate of $3,167,314.70 per 
year.

Paragraph (d)(5)

    The NPRM stated that proposed paragraph (d)(5), requiring agencies 
to provide PAS to employees who need them because of a disability, 
would impose costs because some current federal employees require 
PAS.\124\ The Commission was aware of only one study measuring the 
number of employed individuals who require personal services at work 
because of a disability (2003 study), finding that 1.1% of individuals 
with disabilities, as that term was defined, required ``a personal 
assistant to help with job-related activities.'' \125\ We thus 
estimated that 1.1% of current federal employees with targeted 
disabilities would require PAS.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Paragraph (d)(5) is also expected to impose costs arising 
from the need to provide PAS to individuals who are hired because of 
the Rule. These costs are discussed in the section on paragraph 
(d)(7) below.
    \125\ See Craig Zwerling, et al., Workplace Accommodations for 
People with Disabilities: National Health Interview Survey 
Disability Supplement, 1994-1995, 45 J. Occupational & Envtl. Med. 
517, 519 (2003). For purposes of the study, an individual had a 
disability if he or she had ``difficulty with [activities of daily 
living] (bathing, dressing, eating, getting in or out of bed or 
chair, or using the toilet); difficulty with [instrumental 
activities of daily living] (preparing own meals, shopping for 
personal items, using the telephone, doing heavy work around the 
house, or doing light work around the house); functional limitations 
(lifting 10 pounds, walking up 10 steps, walking a quarter mile, 
standing for 20 minutes, bending down from a standing position, 
reaching over the head, using the fingers to grasp or handle 
something, or holding a pen or pencil); difficulty seeing (even with 
their glasses); difficulty hearing (even with a hearing aid); 
reported mental health or cognitive diagnoses (Down's Syndrome, 
mental retardation, schizophrenia, delusional disorders, bipolar 
disorder, major depression, severe personality disorder, alcohol 
abuse, drug abuse, other mental or emotional conditions); or 
reported use of a cane, crutches, walker, wheelchair. Or scooter to 
get around.'' Id. at 518.
    \126\ The group of individuals included in the study, see supra 
note 125, more closely matches the definition of ``targeted 
disability'' than the definition of ``disability'' under paragraph 
(a). As noted throughout, the Section 501 definition of 
``disability'' is very broad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that this estimate was far too low, and that 
the proposed paragraph would require federal agencies to provide PAS to 
``multitudes'' of federal employees. The Commission disagrees. It is 
simply not true that ``multitudes'' of current federal employees are 
unable to eat, use the restroom, or perform similar tasks without 
assistance. The Commission reminds readers that (d)(5) does not require 
agencies to assist employees by, for example, typing or reading work 
materials aloud for someone who requires these services because of a 
disability, because those types of job-related services are already 
required as reasonable accommodations absent undue hardship. (Of 
course, an agency would not be required to provide these specific 
accommodations if an alternative would be both less expensive and 
equally effective.) The paragraph also does not require agencies to 
hire an assistant to perform essential functions of the individual's 
job, or to perform tasks that the individual can perform on his or her 
own.
    As explained in the NPRM, the Commission suspects that the actual 
number of current federal employees who will receive PAS pursuant to 
(d)(5) is close to zero. A federal employee who requires PAS to remain 
in the workplace, but does not receive PAS from his or her agency, 
generally would need to pay for such services out-of-pocket. An 
individual who has no income, by contrast, typically relies on public 
benefits to pay for PAS. One study has found that an individual would 
need to earn approximately $40,000.00 per year simply to break 
even.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See Douglas Klayman, et al., Soc. Dynamics, LLC, Funding 
Options for Personal Assistance Services 17 (2009), www.dol.gov/odep/research/FundingOptionsPersonalAssistanceServices(PAS).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, because the Commission lacks any additional data, we 
continue to assume for purposes of the analysis that 1.1% of current 
federal employees with targeted disabilities require PAS. There are 
approximately 19,536 individuals with targeted disabilities in the 
federal workforce.\128\ Multiplying that number by 0.011 yields an 
estimated total of 215 current federal employees who require PAS. The 
Commission is aware of 16 current employees who are already given PAS 
by their agencies. Because provision of PAS to these individuals would 
not represent new costs, we exclude these individuals from the 
analysis, leaving an estimated 199 current employees who will receive 
PAS as a result of (d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See 2014 Report, supra note 95, at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even though the proposed paragraph allowed agencies to assign PAS 
providers to multiple individuals, and to perform additional duties, 
the Commission assumed in the NPRM that agencies would provide each 
individual with the equivalent of a full-time PAS provider.\129\ We 
provided both a high and a low estimate of associated costs. To 
calculate the low estimate, we assumed that agencies would contract 
with vendors to provide each individual with PAS for the equivalent of 
full-time hours at the minimum hourly rate for federal contractors 
($10.10).\130\ To calculate the high estimate, the Commission assumed 
that agencies would hire a PAS provider for each individual at the GS-5 
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Because individuals who require personal assistance 
services generally do not require them continuously throughout the 
workday, the cost of providing such services to a single individual 
will represent a fraction of this figure. See, e.g., Tatiana I. 
Solovieva et al., Cost of Workplace Accommodations for Individuals 
with Disabilities: With or Without Personal Assistance Services, 2 
Disability & Health J. 196, 201 (2009) (reporting that the median 
annual cost of accommodations for individuals who need personal 
assistance services is $8,000.00).
    \130\ See Executive Order No. 13658, 79 FR 9851 (Feb. 12, 2014), 
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-20/pdf/2014-03805.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the estimates were far too low. The 
commenter further stated that, to generate the low-end estimate, the 
Commission should assume that agencies will hire PAS providers at the 
GS-6 level, which, according to the commenter, is a level appropriate 
for practical nurses.
    The commenter's assertions are out of step with all available 
evidence. PAS providers earn, on average, an amount per hour that is 
approximately equal to the federal minimum wage,\131\ and an amount per 
year that is significantly lower than the annual salary of a GS-5 level 
employee.\132\ We therefore retain the prior assumptions. To generate 
the low estimate, we multiply $10.10 by the equivalent of full-time 
hours (2,080 hours per year), yielding an estimated annual per-person 
cost of $20,800.00. Multiplying by the number of covered agencies 
yields a total estimated cost for providing PAS to current federal 
employees of $4,180,592.00 per year. To generate the high estimate, we 
multiply the annual salary of a GS-5, step 5 level employee in the 
Washington-Baltimore-

[[Page 674]]

Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA region ($65,519.67, adjusted to 
include benefits) \133\ by the number of covered agencies, for a total 
estimated cost of $13,038,414.33 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See, e.g., Personal Assistant Career, MyMajors, http://www.mymajors.com/career/personal-assistant/salary/ (last visited 
Dec. 21, 2016) (reporting that PAS providers have an average hourly 
wage of $10.20); Douglas Klayman, et al., supra note 127, at 16 
(finding that the average hourly wage was $9.11); Denetta L. Dowler 
et al., Personal Assistance Services in the Workplace: A Literature 
Review, 4 Disability & Health J. 201, 206 (2011) (finding that the 
average hourly wages of between $8.18 and $12.00); Tatiana I. 
Solovieva et al., Personal Assistance Services (PAS) for Individuals 
with Disabilities: Self-Care at the Workplace, 36 Work 339, 341 
(2010) (reporting an average hourly wage of $8.34).
    \132\ PAS providers have an average annual income of $21,210.00. 
See, e.g., Personal Assistant Career, supra note 131. A GS-5 step 5 
level employee in the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-
VA-WV-PA region earns $39,967.00--a full 88% more. See Annual Rates, 
supra note 117.
    \133\ See supra note 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating both the high- and low-end costs of providing PAS, 
the Commission did not include the cost of having PAS providers 
accompany employees on work-related travel. First, we believe that 
whether an agency is required to provide PAS or not, it would have the 
obligation to pay the cost of a PAS provider to travel with an employee 
as a reasonable accommodation.\134\ Additionally, the Commission lacks 
any reliable data on which to base such an estimate, since there is no 
way of knowing how many employees who require PAS would be hired into 
jobs that require travel and how often travel would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See 29 CFR pt. 1630, app. 1630.2(o) (stating that it may 
be a reasonable accommodation for an employer to provide ``a travel 
attendant to act as a sighted guide to assist a blind employee on 
occasional business trips''). Additionally, federal regulations 
specifically provide for the reimbursement of travel expenses for 
family members or other attendants needed by an employee with a 
disability to make work-related travel possible. See 41 CFR 301-12, 
-13, -70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d)(6)

    In the NPRM, the Commission asserted that proposed paragraph 
(d)(6), requiring agencies to gather workforce data, imposed no new 
costs on agencies because they are already required to gather such data 
under MD-715.\135\ However, paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(A) has been amended to 
allow agencies to develop novel ways of gathering voluntary self-report 
data if the SF-256 does not meet their needs. We estimate that 50 
agencies will gather voluntary self-identification data using a form 
other than the SF-256, and that each agency will spend 10 hours per 
year administering the survey, for a total of 500 additional burden 
hours. Multiplying by the hourly compensation rate of $66.78, we 
conclude that paragraph (d)(6) will have a total annual cost of 
approximately $33,390.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ MD-715 requires agencies to conduct annual internal 
reviews of their policies, practices, and procedures to determine 
whether they provide sufficient employment opportunities to 
qualified applicants and employees with disabilities, especially 
those with targeted disabilities. As part of this analysis, agencies 
must determine the numerical representation and distribution of 
applicants and employees with disabilities and targeted 
disabilities. See MD-715, supra note 16, at B.III. MD-715 also 
requires agencies to determine whether they are meeting obligations 
imposed by Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e--2000e-17, on an annual basis. 
See id. at A. Those requirements are not relevant to this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d)(7)

    The NPRM noted that 3 aspects of proposed paragraph (d)(7), 
requiring agencies to adopt employment goals for individuals with 
disabilities and individuals with targeted disabilities, were likely to 
impose recurring costs. First, to determine whether the goals have been 
met, agencies would need to determine how many individuals with 
disabilities are employed at each GS and SES level. The NPRM stated 
that the associated costs would be minimal because agencies could 
simply request the information from OPM.\136\ The Commission estimated 
that each agency would spend 2 hours performing the required tasks, for 
an estimated total of 436 burden hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See, e.g., 2014 Report, supra note 95, at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, revisions to the Rule require us to adjust the estimate. In 
addition to the information described above, agencies that have 
employees who are on neither the GS nor the SES pay scale will need to 
determine how many such employees--
     are individuals with disabilities and have salaries equal 
to or greater than an employee at the GS-11 step 1 level in the 
Washington, DC locality;
     are individuals with targeted disabilities and have 
salaries equal to or greater than employees at the GS-11 step 1 level 
in the Washington, DC locality;
     are individuals with disabilities and have salaries less 
than employees at the GS-11 step 1 level in the Washington, DC 
locality; and
     are individuals with targeted disabilities and have 
salaries less than employees at the GS-11 step 1 level in the 
Washington, DC locality.

There are approximately 114 agencies that have employees on non-GS, 
non-SES pay scales. The Commission estimates that each such agency will 
spend 2 hours collecting the required information, for a total of 228 
additional burden hours. Adding the previous estimate yields an overall 
estimate of 664 burden hours arising from the obligation to determine 
whether the employment goals have been met. Multiplying by the hourly 
compensation rate $66.78 yields a total estimated annual cost of 
$44,341.92.
    Second, the NPRM stated that because paragraph (d)(7)(i) encourages 
federal agencies to hire individuals with disabilities, it may impose 
ongoing costs by increasing the number of federal employees who need a 
reasonable accommodation. We first considered the number of additional 
employees who would require a reasonable accommodation. Based on OPM 
data, the Commission estimated that the federal government as a whole 
would need to hire approximately 384 individuals with targeted 
disabilities at the GS-10 level or below, and approximately 10,381 
individuals with targeted disabilities at the GS-11 level or above 
(including the SES), to meet the goals.
    Because the goals have been revised to cover employees who are on 
neither the GS nor the SES pay scale, the estimate has been revised-- 
\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See id. Because OPM reports only limited data regarding 
federal employees who are on neither the GS nor the SES pay scale, 
the Commission assumed for purposes of this analysis that employees, 
employees with disabilities, and employees with targeted 
disabilities are distributed between higher and lower levels of 
employment in roughly the same proportions as employees on the GS 
and SES scales. We also note that, based on an initial review of 
2015 data, the number of new hires required to reach the goals would 
likely be lower than estimated above, resulting in lower costs 
overall. See Office of Pers. Mgmt., Report on the Employment of 
Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Executive Branch: 
Fiscal Year 2015, 27 (2015), https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion/reports/disability-report-fy2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Agencies will need to hire approximately 1,594 additional 
individuals with targeted disabilities to meet the 2% goal for 
individuals who are either at the GS-10 level or below or who are not 
paid under the General Schedule and who have salaries that are less 
than that of an employee at the GS-11 step 1 level in the Washington, 
DC locality.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ The regulation does not require agencies to create 
positions or vacancies for persons with targeted disabilities; 
agencies may place individuals with targeted disabilities into 
existing vacancies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Agencies will need to hire approximately 15,385 additional 
individuals with targeted disabilities to meet the 2% goal for 
individuals who are either at the GS-11 level or above or who are not 
paid under the General Schedule and who have salaries equal to or 
greater than that of an employee at the GS-11 step 1 level in the 
Washington, DC locality.
     Agencies will need to hire approximately 4,262 additional 
individuals with disabilities to meet the 12% goal for individuals who 
are either at the GS-11 level or above or who are not paid under the 
General Schedule and who have salaries equal to or greater than that of 
an employee at the GS-11 step 1 level in the Washington, DC locality.

As in the NPRM, we assume that each new hire will require a reasonable 
accommodation,\139\ and estimate the

[[Page 675]]

cost of each accommodation to be $500.00 per year.\140\ Multiplying by 
the total number of estimated new hires (21,241) yields an estimated 
cost of $10,620,500.00 per year arising from the need to provide 
reasonable accommodations to new hires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ As noted in the NPRM, this is almost certainly an 
overestimate, because many individuals with disabilities do not 
require an accommodation. See Job Accommodation Network, Workplace 
Accommodations: Low Cost, High Impact 3 (updated Sept. 1, 2014), 
http://askjan.org/media/downloads/LowCostHighImpact.pdf.
    \140\ See id. (finding that, if an accommodation has a cost, it 
will typically be approximately $500.00). This is also almost 
certainly an overestimate, because many individuals with 
disabilities do not require an accommodation; if an accommodation is 
required, it is likely to have no cost; and if it does have a cost, 
the cost does not necessarily recur. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the NPRM stated that proposed paragraph (d)(7)(i) would 
impose ongoing costs by encouraging agencies to hire employees who are 
entitled to PAS under paragraph (d)(5). We assumed that the percentage 
of individuals who require PAS among new hires with targeted 
disabilities would reflect the percentage of individuals requiring PAS 
among individuals who have targeted disabilities, are unemployed, and 
are looking for work. Based on the 2003 study, and on a 2006 study that 
investigated the prevalence of reported ``self-care difficulties'' 
among employed and unemployed individuals with disabilities,\141\ we 
estimated that between 1.1% and 2% of individuals who have targeted 
disabilities, are unemployed, and looking for work require PAS. 
However, because neither study assessed the need for PAS among 
unemployed individuals,\142\ we noted at the time that the estimates 
may be both under- and over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Susan Stoddard et al., Personal Assistance Services as a 
Workplace Accommodation, 27 Work 363, 364 (2006).
    \142\ As explained, the 2003 study assesses the need for PAS 
among employed individuals with disabilities, and the 2006 study 
assesses the prevalence of reported self-care difficulties among 
unemployed individuals with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has refined its approach. We again assume that the 
percentage of individuals requiring PAS among new hires with targeted 
disabilities will reflect the percentage of those requiring PAS among 
individuals who have targeted disabilities, are unemployed, and looking 
for work. To determine the latter percentage, we first attempt to 
determine the number of individuals who have targeted disabilities, are 
unemployed, and are looking for work. We then attempt to determine the 
number of individuals who have targeted disabilities, are unemployed, 
are looking for work, and who require PAS. Finally, we compare the two 
numbers to arrive at a percentage.
    To determine the number of individuals who have targeted 
disabilities, are unemployed, and are looking for work, we rely on 
census data. As discussed above, the census definition of 
``disability'' matches neither the definition of ``disability'' nor the 
definition of ``targeted disability'' under paragraph (a). However, the 
census data are the best available to the Commission at this time. 
Further, because the census definition requires ``serious difficulty'' 
with an activity such as seeing or walking, it is likely that most 
people who meet the census definition have a targeted disability.\143\ 
We therefore rely on census data to conclude for purposes of the 
economic analysis that there are approximately 1,282,377 individuals 
who have targeted disabilities, are unemployed, and are looking for 
work.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ See supra note 99.
    \144\ See Employment Status by Disability Status and Type 
(2014), U.S. Census Bureau, http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_1YR_B18120&prodType=table (last visited 
Dec. 21, 2016) (reporting that 1,282,377 individuals who meet the 
census definition of ``disability'' are noninstitutionalized, 
between the ages of 18 and 64, unemployed, and looking for work). 
Use of the census data will lead to an overestimate of costs. As 
noted in the NPRM, some individuals with targeted disabilities, such 
as individuals with epilepsy or certain psychiatric disabilities, 
likely do not fall into the census definition. Therefore, the census 
data are likely to underestimate the total number of individuals 
with targeted disabilities who are unemployed and looking for work, 
thereby making the proportion of such individuals needing PAS seem 
artificially large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the number of individuals who have targeted 
disabilities, are unemployed, are looking for work, and who require 
PAS, we first note that there are approximately 1,257,000 individuals 
employed as personal assistance service providers throughout the 
country.\145\ Assuming that each provider is assigned to a single 
individual, there are approximately 1,257,000 individuals who require 
PAS nationally, presumably because of a targeted disability.\146\ Not 
all of these individuals are unemployed and looking for work, however--
some are already employed, some are retired, some are below working 
age, and some do not participate in the workforce for other reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Personal Assistant Career, supra note 131.
    \146\ We recognize that some individuals with disabilities may 
receive PAS from family members, rather than from persons who work 
as personal assistance service providers. We have no data, however, 
about how many such individuals receive PAS exclusively from family 
members, and consequently, whether and to what extent 1,257,000 
individuals who require PAS underestimates the actual number. We 
believe that any difference would be small, however, since 
individuals who receive PAS from family members likely also receive 
PAS from individuals who are PAS providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is not aware of any data showing how many 
individuals who require PAS because of a targeted disability are 
unemployed and looking for work. To arrive at an approximation, we 
assume that the workforce participation and unemployment rates for such 
individuals reflect those of individuals who have disabilities that 
result in self-care difficulty more generally.\147\ Research shows that 
roughly 8% of these individuals participate in the workforce (are 
either employed or unemployed and looking for work),\148\ and that 
their unemployment rate is approximately 18.14%.\149\ Thus, roughly 
18.14% of 8%, or 1.4512%, of individuals with disabilities resulting in 
self-care difficulty are unemployed and looking for work. Applying this 
percentage to the estimated number of individuals who require PAS 
because of a targeted disability (1,257,000), we find that there are 
approximately 18,242 individuals who have a targeted disability, are 
unemployed, are looking for work, and who require PAS nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ We suspect that the workforce participation rate for 
individuals who require PAS is significantly lower than the 
workforce participation rate for individuals who have disabilities 
that result in self-care difficulty. But again, because the 
Commission lacks more specific data, and also because lower 
workforce participation rates may be offset by higher unemployment 
rates for individuals who require PAS, we believe that the data on 
individuals who have disabilities that result in self-care 
difficulty are adequate for purposes of this analysis.
    \148\ Am. Insts. for Research, One Size Does Not Fit All: A New 
Look at the Labor Force Participation of People with Disabilities 4 
(2015), http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Labor-Force-Participation-People-with-Disabilities-Yin-Sept-2015.pdf.
    \149\ In 2014, the number of employed individuals who had 
disabilities that resulted in self-care difficulty was 548,700, and 
the number who were unemployed and looking for work was 121,600. The 
total number of such individuals who participated in the workforce 
in 2014 was therefore 670,300. The 121,600 who were unemployed and 
looking for work represent 18.14% of this total. All of these 
figures were obtained using the data retrieval tool at Cornell 
Univ., American Community Survey (ACS) Employment Statistics, 
Disability Statistics, https://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/acs.cfm?statistic=3 (last visited July 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comparing the estimated number of individuals who have targeted 
disabilities, are unemployed, are looking for work, and who require PAS 
(18,242) to the estimated total number of individuals who have targeted 
disabilities, are unemployed, and are looking for work (1,282,377), we 
find that the former group represents 1.42% of the latter. Assuming, as 
discussed above, that this relationship will be

[[Page 676]]

reflected in the estimated 16,979 new hires who have targeted 
disabilities, we conclude that 241 new hires will require PAS.
    To generate an estimate of the associated costs, we rely on the 
estimated per-person costs for providing PAS calculated in the section 
on paragraph (d)(5) above. Multiplying 241 by the low estimate of the 
associated costs ($21,008.00) yields a total estimated cost of 
$5,062,928.00 per year, and multiplying by the high estimate of the 
associated costs ($65,519.67) yields a total estimated cost of 
$15,790,240.47 per year.
    In summary, the estimated annual costs arising from paragraph 
(d)(7) will be $44,341.92 (the estimated cost of determining whether 
goals have been met) plus $10,620,500.00 (the estimated cost of 
providing reasonable accommodations to individuals hired pursuant to 
the goals) plus between $5,062,928.00 and $15,790,240.47 (the estimated 
cost of providing PAS to individuals hired pursuant to the goals), for 
a total estimated annual cost of between $15,727,769.92 and 
$26,455,082.39.
Paragraphs (d)(8)(iii) and (d)(8)(iv)
    The requirements of proposed paragraphs (d)(8)(iii) and 
(d)(8)(iv)--to keep records of all employees hired under the Schedule A 
hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities, to calculate 
the number of such employees who have been converted to career or 
career-conditional appointment, and to calculate the number of such 
employees who have been terminated prior to conversion--were adopted 
unchanged in the Final Rule. The NPRM estimated that it would take each 
agency 2 hours to gather the required data, to perform the required 
calculations, and to create and maintain the associated records. 
Multiplying by the number of covered agencies yielded an overall 
estimate of 436 burden hours per year.
    One commenter stated that the estimate is too low for small 
agencies that do not have ``automated [human resources (HR)] systems.'' 
The commenter did not state how many such agencies there are. For 
purposes of this analysis, the Commission estimates for purposes of 
this analysis that 20 agencies lack an automated HR system.
    The commenter also did not provide an estimate of the amount of 
time that such agencies would need to perform the required tasks, 
except to say that the ``guidepost . . . is the amount of time it takes 
to manually prepare the MD-715 report.'' We disagree that it would take 
agencies the same amount of time to meet the requirements of 
(d)(8)(iii) and (d)(8)(iv) as it would take them to prepare an entire 
MD-715 report. The commenter is reminded that, to the extent paragraph 
(d)(8) requires agencies to maintain the same records that are required 
under MD-715, it imposes no new burden. The (d)(8) requirements exceed 
those of MD-715 only insofar as they require records relating to the 
Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities. We 
also note that the associated burden is likely to be proportional to 
the size of the agency--if an agency is small enough that it lacks an 
automated HR system, it is not likely to have appointed an 
overwhelmingly large number of individuals under the Schedule A hiring 
authority for persons with certain disabilities.
    Nevertheless, the Commission estimates for purposes of this 
analysis that each of the estimated 20 agencies lacking automated HR 
systems will need to spend an additional 10 hours performing the 
required tasks, for a total of 200 additional burden hours. Adding this 
to the previous estimate yields a total estimate of 636 burden hours. 
Multiplying by the hourly compensation rate of $66.78 yields a total 
estimated cost for paragraphs (d)(8)(iii) and (d)(8)(iv) of $42,472.08 
per year.
Economic Benefits
    As stated in the NPRM, the Rule is also expected to have positive 
economic effects by bringing a greater number of individuals with 
disabilities into the workforce.\150\ Because individuals who require 
PAS throughout the day and who are looking for work most likely rely on 
government benefits to meet the significant cost of hiring a personal 
assistant, the NPRM assumed that each individual who receives PAS from 
an agency would otherwise have relied on Social Security and 
Supplemental Security Income benefits to pay for those services. 
Research indicated that, for every individual with a disability who 
transitions from receipt of benefits to gainful employment, the federal 
government saves approximately $19,380.00 in paid benefits, and gains 
approximately $8,079.00 in tax revenue, on an annual basis,\151\ for a 
total annual benefit of $27,459.00 per individual. The Commission 
received no objections to this analysis. Multiplying by the revised 
estimate of the number of new hires who are expected to require PAS 
(241) yields a total estimated economic benefit of $6,617,619.00 per 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ See, e.g., Jean P. Hall, et al., Employment as a Health 
Determinant for Working-Age, Dually-Eligible People with 
Disabilities, 6 Disability & Health J. 100 (2013) (finding that 
employment of individuals with disabilities is associated with lower 
per-person, per-month Medicaid expenditures).
    \151\ See Douglas Klayman, et al., supra note 127, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Economic Effects
    The NPRM also noted that, in addition to economic effects, the 
proposed rule would have a variety of qualitative and dignitary 
benefits, all of which further values identified in Executive Order 
13563 such as equity, human dignity, and fairness. Most significantly, 
the NPRM stated that the rule would increase the number of hiring and 
advancement opportunities available to individuals with disabilities by 
making them better aware of federal job openings. Research demonstrates 
that employment is an important determinant of both perceived quality 
of life and health status among individuals with disabilities.\152\ In 
addition, the NPRM stated that the proposed rule would have qualitative 
and dignitary benefits, including--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See, e.g., Jean P. Hall, et al., supra note 150, at 100 
(finding that, among individuals who are eligible for both Medicaid 
and Medicare, paid employment is associated with significantly 
better quality of life, self-reported health status, and health 
behaviors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     promotion of human dignity and self-respect, and 
diminished feelings of exclusion and humiliation;
     reduced prevalence of disability-based stereotypes and 
associated stigma;
     increased diversity, understanding, and fairness in the 
workplace; and
     improved interactions with coworkers and workplace morale.
    All of these considerations apply equally well to the Final Rule. 
The Rule is also expected to prevent disability-based employment 
discrimination by making job applicants, employees, and agency 
management better aware of the protections against discrimination 
provided by Section 501.
Summary
    In summary, the Commission estimates that the Rule as a whole will 
have a one-time initial cost to the federal government of approximately 
$145,580.40, an annual cost to the federal government of between 
$23,151,538.70 and $70,954,568.10, and an annual economic benefit to 
the federal government of $6,617,619.00. The Rule is also expected to 
have a variety of non-monetizable qualitative and dignitary benefits 
for individuals with disabilities and individuals with targeted 
disabilities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
    The Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this Rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on

[[Page 677]]

a substantial number of small entities, because it applies exclusively 
to employees and agencies of the federal government. For this reason, a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    This Final Rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, 
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed 
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995.
Congressional Review Act
    This action pertains to agency management, personnel and 
organization and does not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a ``rule'' 
as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Therefore, 
the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1614

    Administrative practice and procedure, Age discrimination, Equal 
employment opportunity, Government employees, Individuals with 
disabilities, Race discrimination, Religious discrimination, Sex 
discrimination.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission amends 29 CFR part 1614 as follows:

PART 1614--FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

0
1. The authority citation for part 1614 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  29 U.S.C. 206(d), 633a, 791 and 794a; 42 U.S.C. 
2000e-16 and 2000FF-6(e); E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 
218; E.O. 11222, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 11478, 3 CFR, 
1969 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12106, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 263; Reorg. 
Plan No. 1 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 321.

0
2. Revise Sec.  1614.203 to read as follows:


Sec.  1614.203  Rehabilitation Act.

    (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of 
this section:
    (1) The term ADA means title I of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12101 through 12117), title V of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12201 through 
12213), as it applies to employment, and the regulations of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission implementing titles I and V of the 
ADA at part 1630 of this chapter.
    (2) The term disability means disability as defined under Sec.  
1630.2(g) through (l) of this chapter.
    (3) The term hiring authority that takes disability into account 
means a hiring authority that permits an agency to consider disability 
status during the hiring process, including the hiring authority for 
individuals with intellectual disabilities, severe physical 
disabilities, or psychiatric disabilities, as set forth at 5 CFR 
213.3102(u); the Veterans' Recruitment Appointment authority, as set 
forth at 5 CFR part 307; and the 30% or More Disabled Veteran 
authority, as set forth at 5 CFR 316.302(b)(4), 316.402(b)(4).
    (4) The term personal assistance service provider means an employee 
or independent contractor whose primary job functions include provision 
of personal assistance services.
    (5) The term personal assistance services means assistance with 
performing activities of daily living that an individual would 
typically perform if he or she did not have a disability, and that is 
not otherwise required as a reasonable accommodation, including, for 
example, assistance with removing and putting on clothing, eating, and 
using the restroom.
    (6) The term Plan means an affirmative action plan for the hiring, 
placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities, as 
required under 29 U.S.C. 791(b).
    (7) The term Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain 
disabilities means the hiring authority for individuals with 
intellectual disabilities, severe physical disabilities, or psychiatric 
disabilities, as set forth at 5 CFR 213.3102(u).
    (8) The term Section 501 means section 501 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 791).
    (9) The term targeted disability means a disability that is 
designated as a ``targeted disability or health condition'' on the 
Office of Personnel Management's Standard Form 256 or that falls under 
one of the first 12 categories of disability listed in Part A of 
question 5 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Demographic 
Information on Applicants form.
    (10) The term undue hardship has the meaning set forth in part 1630 
of this chapter.
    (b) Nondiscrimination. Federal agencies shall not discriminate on 
the basis of disability in regard to the hiring, advancement or 
discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, or other 
terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The standards used to 
determine whether Section 501 has been violated in a complaint alleging 
employment discrimination under this part shall be the standards 
applied under the ADA.
    (c) Model employer. The Federal Government shall be a model 
employer of individuals with disabilities. Agencies shall give full 
consideration to the hiring, advancement, and retention of qualified 
individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce. Agencies shall 
also take affirmative action to promote the recruitment, hiring, and 
advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities, with the goal 
of eliminating under-representation of individuals with disabilities in 
the federal workforce.
    (d) Affirmative action plan. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 791, each agency 
shall adopt and implement a Plan that provides sufficient assurances, 
procedures, and commitments to provide adequate hiring, placement, and 
advancement opportunities for individuals with disabilities at all 
levels of federal employment. An agency fails to satisfy this 
requirement unless it has adopted and implemented a Plan that meets the 
following criteria:
    (1) Disability hiring and advancement program--(i) Recruitment. The 
Plan shall require the agency to take specific steps to ensure that a 
broad range of individuals with disabilities, including individuals 
with targeted disabilities, will be aware of and be encouraged to apply 
for job vacancies when eligible. Such steps shall include, at a 
minimum--
    (A) Use of programs and resources that identify job applicants with 
disabilities, including individuals with targeted disabilities, who are 
eligible to be appointed under a hiring authority that takes disability 
into account, consistent with applicable OPM regulations, examples of 
which could include programs that provide the qualifications necessary 
for particular positions within the agency to individuals with 
disabilities, databases of individuals with disabilities who previously 
applied to the agency but were not hired for the positions they applied 
for, and training and internship programs that lead directly to 
employment for individuals with disabilities; and
    (B) Establishment and maintenance of contacts (which may include 
formal agreements) with organizations that specialize in providing 
assistance to individuals with disabilities, including

[[Page 678]]

individuals with targeted disabilities, in securing and maintaining 
employment, such as American Job Centers, State Vocational 
Rehabilitation Agencies, the Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation and 
Employment Program, Centers for Independent Living, and Employment 
Network service providers.
    (ii) Application process. The Plan shall ensure that the agency has 
designated sufficient staff to handle any disability-related issues 
that arise during the application and selection processes, and shall 
require the agency to provide such individuals with sufficient 
training, support, and other resources to carry out their 
responsibilities under this section. Such responsibilities shall 
include, at a minimum--
    (A) Ensuring that disability-related questions from members of the 
public regarding the agency's application and selection processes are 
answered promptly and correctly, including questions about reasonable 
accommodations needed by job applicants during the application and 
selection processes and questions about how individuals may apply for 
appointment under hiring authorities that take disability into account;
    (B) Processing requests for reasonable accommodations needed by job 
applicants during the application and placement processes, and ensuring 
that the agency provides such accommodations when required to do so 
under the standards set forth in part 1630 of this chapter;
    (C) Accepting applications for appointment under hiring authorities 
that take disability into account, consistent with applicable OPM 
regulations;
    (D) If an individual has applied for appointment to a particular 
position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account, 
determining whether the individual is eligible for appointment under 
such authority, and, if so, forwarding the individual's application to 
the relevant hiring officials with an explanation of how and when the 
individual may be appointed, consistent with all applicable laws;
    (E) Overseeing any other agency programs designed to increase 
hiring of individuals with disabilities.
    (iii) Advancement program. The Plan shall require the agency to 
take specific steps to ensure that current employees with disabilities 
have sufficient opportunities for advancement. Such steps may include, 
for example--
    (A) Efforts to ensure that employees with disabilities are informed 
of and have opportunities to enroll in relevant training, including 
management training when eligible;
    (B) Development or maintenance of a mentoring program for employees 
with disabilities; and
    (C) Administration of exit interviews that include questions on how 
the agency could improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, and 
advancement of individuals with disabilities.
    (2) Disability anti-harassment policy. The Plan shall require the 
agency to state specifically in its anti-harassment policy that 
harassment based on disability is prohibited, and to include in its 
training materials examples of the types of conduct that would 
constitute disability-based harassment.
    (3) Reasonable accommodation--(i) Procedures. The Plan shall 
require the agency to adopt, post on its public Web site, and make 
available to all job applicants and employees in written and accessible 
formats, reasonable accommodation procedures that are easy to 
understand and that, at a minimum--
    (A) Explain relevant terms such as ``reasonable accommodation,'' 
``disability,'' ``interactive process,'' ``qualified,'' and ``undue 
hardship,'' consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory 
definitions, using examples where appropriate;
    (B) Explain that reassignment to a vacant position for which an 
employee is qualified, and not just permission to compete for such 
position, is a reasonable accommodation, and that the agency must 
consider providing reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable 
accommodation when it determines that no other reasonable accommodation 
will permit an employee with a disability to perform the essential 
functions of his or her current position;
    (C) Notify supervisors and other relevant agency employees how and 
where they are to conduct searches for available vacancies when 
considering reassignment as a reasonable accommodation;
    (D) Explain that an individual may request a reasonable 
accommodation orally or in writing at any time, need not fill out any 
specific form in order for the interactive process to begin, and need 
not have a particular accommodation in mind before making a request, 
and that the request may be made to a supervisor or manager in the 
individual's chain of command, the office designated by the agency to 
oversee the reasonable accommodation process, any agency employee 
connected with the application process, or any other individual 
designated by the agency to accept such requests;
    (E) Include any forms the agency uses in connection with a 
reasonable accommodation request as attachments, and indicate that such 
forms are available in alternative formats that are accessible to 
people with disabilities;
    (F) Describe the agency's process for determining whether to 
provide a reasonable accommodation, including the interactive process, 
and provide contact information for the individual or program office 
from whom requesters will receive a final decision;
    (G) Provide guidance to supervisors on how to recognize requests 
for reasonable accommodation;
    (H) Require that decision makers communicate, early in the 
interactive process and periodically throughout the process, with 
individuals who have requested a reasonable accommodation;
    (I) Explain when the agency may require an individual who requests 
a reasonable accommodation to provide medical information that is 
sufficient to explain the nature of the individual's disability, his or 
her need for reasonable accommodation, and how the requested 
accommodation, if any, will assist the individual to apply for a job, 
perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and 
privileges of the workplace;
    (J) Explain the agency's right to request relevant supplemental 
medical information if the information submitted by the requester is 
insufficient for the purposes specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(I) of 
this section;
    (K) Explain the agency's right to have medical information reviewed 
by a medical expert of the agency's choosing at the agency's expense;
    (L) Explain the agency's obligation to keep medical information 
confidential, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and 
the limited circumstances under which such information may be 
disclosed;
    (M) Designate the maximum amount of time the agency has, absent 
extenuating circumstances, to either provide a requested accommodation 
or deny the request, and explain that the time limit begins to run when 
the accommodation is first requested;
    (N) Explain that the agency will not be expected to adhere to its 
usual timelines if an individual's health professional fails to provide 
needed documentation in a timely manner;
    (O) Explain that, where a particular reasonable accommodation can 
be provided in less than the maximum amount of time permitted under 
paragraph (d)(3)(i)(M) of this section, failure to provide the 
accommodation in a prompt manner may result in a violation of the 
Rehabilitation Act;

[[Page 679]]

    (P) Provide for expedited processing of requests for reasonable 
accommodations that are needed sooner than the maximum allowable time 
frame permitted under paragraph (d)(3)(i)(M) of this section;
    (Q) Explain that, when all the facts and circumstances known to the 
agency make it reasonably likely that an individual will be entitled to 
a reasonable accommodation, but the accommodation cannot be provided 
immediately, the agency shall provide an interim accommodation that 
allows the individual to perform some or all of the essential functions 
of his or her job, if it is possible to do so without imposing undue 
hardship on the agency;
    (R) Inform applicants and employees how they may track the 
processing of requests for reasonable accommodation;
    (S) Explain that, where there is a delay in either processing a 
request for or providing a reasonable accommodation, the agency must 
notify the individual of the reason for the delay, including any 
extenuating circumstances that justify the delay;
    (T) Explain that individuals who have been denied reasonable 
accommodations have the right to file complaints pursuant to 29 CFR 
1614.106;
    (U) Encourage the use of voluntary informal dispute resolution 
processes that individuals may use to obtain prompt reconsideration of 
denied requests for reasonable accommodation;
    (V) Provide that the agency shall give the requester a notice 
consistent with the requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this 
section at the time a request for reasonable accommodation is denied; 
and
    (W) Provide information on how to access additional information 
regarding reasonable accommodation, including, at a minimum, Commission 
guidance and technical assistance documents.
    (ii) Cost of accommodations. The Plan shall require the agency to 
take specific steps to ensure that requests for reasonable 
accommodation are not denied for reasons of cost, and that individuals 
with disabilities are not excluded from employment due to the 
anticipated cost of a reasonable accommodation, if the resources 
available to the agency as a whole, excluding those designated by 
statute for a specific purpose that does not include reasonable 
accommodation, would enable it to provide an effective reasonable 
accommodation without undue hardship. Such steps shall be reasonably 
designed to, at a minimum--
    (A) Ensure that anyone who is authorized to grant or deny requests 
for reasonable accommodation or to make hiring decisions is aware that, 
pursuant to the regulations implementing the undue hardship defense at 
29 CFR part 1630, all resources available to the agency as a whole, 
excluding those designated by statute for a specific purpose that does 
not include reasonable accommodation, are considered when determining 
whether a denial of reasonable accommodation based on cost is lawful; 
and
    (B) Ensure that anyone authorized to grant or deny requests for 
reasonable accommodation or to make hiring decisions is aware of, and 
knows how to arrange for the use of, agency resources available to 
provide the accommodation, including any centralized fund the agency 
may have for that purpose.
    (iii) Notification of basis for denial. The Plan shall require the 
agency to provide a job applicant or employee who is denied a 
reasonable accommodation with a written notice at the time of the 
denial, in an accessible format when requested, that--
    (A) Explains the reasons for the denial and notifies the job 
applicant or employee of any available internal appeal or informal 
dispute resolution processes;
    (B) Informs the job applicant or employee of the right to challenge 
the denial by filing a complaint of discrimination under this part;
    (C) Provides instructions on how to file such a complaint; and
    (D) Explains that, pursuant to 29 CFR 1614.105, the right to file a 
complaint will be lost unless the job applicant or employee initiates 
contact with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the denial, regardless 
of whether the applicant or employee participates in an informal 
dispute resolution process.
    (4) Accessibility of facilities and technology--(i) Notice of 
rights. The Plan shall require the agency to adopt, post on its public 
Web site, and make available to all employees in written and accessible 
formats, a notice that--
    (A) Explains their rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794d, concerning the accessibility of agency 
technology, and the Architectural Barriers Act, 42 U.S.C. 4151 through 
4157, concerning the accessibility of agency building and facilities;
    (B) Provides contact information for an agency employee who is 
responsible for ensuring the physical accessibility of the agency's 
facilities under the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and an agency 
employee who is responsible for ensuring that the electronic and 
information technology purchased, maintained, or used by the agency is 
readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities, as 
required by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and
    (C) Provides instructions on how to file complaints alleging 
violations of the accessibility requirements of the Architectural 
Barriers Act of 1968 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
    (ii) Assistance with filing complaints at other agencies. If an 
agency's investigation of a complaint filed under Section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 
shows that a different entity is responsible for the alleged violation, 
the Plan shall require the agency to inform the individual who filed 
the complaint where he or she may file a complaint against the other 
entity, if possible.
    (5) Personal assistance services allowing employees to participate 
in the workplace-- (i) Obligation to provide personal assistance 
services. The Plan shall require the agency to provide an employee 
with, in addition to professional services required as a reasonable 
accommodation under the standards set forth in part 1630 of this 
chapter, personal assistance services during work hours and job-related 
travel if--
    (A) The employee requires such services because of a targeted 
disability;
    (B) Provision of such services would, together with any reasonable 
accommodations required under the standards set forth in part 1630 of 
this chapter, enable the employee to perform the essential functions of 
his or her position; and
    (C) Provision of such services would not impose undue hardship on 
the agency.
    (ii) Service providers. The Plan shall state that personal 
assistance services required under paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section 
must be performed by a personal assistance service provider. The Plan 
may permit the agency to require personal assistance service providers 
to provide personal assistance services to more than one individual. 
The Plan may also permit the agency to require personal assistance 
service providers to perform tasks unrelated to personal assistance 
services, but only to the extent that doing so does not result in 
failure to provide personal assistance services required under 
paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section in a timely manner.
    (iii) No adverse action. The Plan shall prohibit the agency from 
taking adverse actions against job applicants or employees based on 
their need for, or

[[Page 680]]

perceived need for, personal assistance services.
    (iv) Selection of personal assistance service providers. The Plan 
shall require the agency, when selecting someone who will provide 
personal assistance services to a single individual, to give primary 
consideration to the individual's preferences to the extent permitted 
by law.
    (v) Written procedures. The Plan shall require the agency to adopt, 
post on its public Web site, and make available to all job applicants 
and employees in written and accessible formats, procedures for 
processing requests for personal assistance services. An agency may 
satisfy this requirement by stating, in the procedures required under 
paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, that the process for requesting 
personal assistance services, the process for determining whether such 
services are required, and the agency's right to deny such requests 
when provision of the services would pose an undue hardship, are the 
same as for reasonable accommodations.
    (6) Utilization analysis--(i) Current utilization. The Plan shall 
require the agency to perform a workforce analysis annually to 
determine the percentage of its employees at each grade and salary 
level who have disabilities, and the percentage of its employees at 
each grade and salary level who have targeted disabilities.
    (ii) Source of data. For purposes of the analysis required under 
paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section, an employee may be classified as 
an individual with a disability or an individual with a targeted 
disability on the basis of--
    (A) The individual's self-identification as an individual with a 
disability or an individual with a targeted disability on a form, 
including but not limited to the Office of Personnel Management's 
Standard Form 256, which states that the information collected will be 
kept confidential and used only for statistical purposes, and that 
completion of the form is voluntary;
    (B) Records relating to the individual's appointment under a hiring 
authority that takes disability into account, if applicable; and
    (C) Records relating to the individual's requests for reasonable 
accommodation, if any.
    (iii) Data accuracy. The Plan shall require the agency to take 
steps to ensure that data collected pursuant to paragraph (d)(6)(i) of 
this section are accurate.
    (7) Goals--(i) Adoption. The Plan shall commit the agency to the 
goal of ensuring that--
    (A) No less than 12% of employees at the GS-11 level and above, 
together with employees who are not paid under the General Schedule but 
who have salaries equal to or greater than employees at the GS-11, step 
1 level in the Washington, DC locality, are individuals with 
disabilities;
    (B) No less than 12% of employees at the GS-10 level and below, 
together with employees who are not paid under the General Schedule but 
who have salaries less than employees at the GS-11, step 1 level in the 
Washington, DC locality, are individuals with disabilities;
    (C) No less than 2% of employees at the GS-11 level and above, 
together with employees who are not paid under the General Schedule but 
who have salaries equal to or greater than employees at the GS-11, step 
1 level in the Washington, DC locality, are individuals with targeted 
disabilities; and
    (D) No less than 2% of employees at the GS-10 level and below, 
together with employees who are not paid under the General Schedule but 
who have salaries less than employees at the GS-11, step 1 level in the 
Washington, DC locality, are individuals with targeted disabilities.
    (ii) Progression toward goals. The Plan shall require the agency to 
take specific steps that are reasonably designed to gradually increase 
the number of persons with disabilities or targeted disabilities 
employed at the agency until it meets the goals established pursuant to 
paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section. Examples of such steps include, 
but are not limited to--
    (A) Increased use of hiring authorities that take disability into 
account to hire or promote individuals with disabilities or targeted 
disabilities, as applicable;
    (B) To the extent permitted by applicable laws, consideration of 
disability or targeted disability status as a positive factor in 
hiring, promotion, or assignment decisions;
    (C) Disability-related training and education campaigns for all 
employees in the agency;
    (D) Additional outreach or recruitment efforts;
    (E) Increased efforts to hire and retain individuals who require 
supported employment because of a disability, who have retained the 
services of a job coach at their own expense or at the expense of a 
third party, and who may be given permission to use the job coach 
during work hours as a reasonable accommodation without imposing undue 
hardship on the agency; and
    (F) Adoption of training, mentoring, or internship programs for 
individuals with disabilities.
    (8) Recordkeeping. The Plan shall require the agency to keep 
records that it may use to determine whether it is complying with the 
nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements imposed under 
Section 501, and to make such records available to the Commission upon 
the Commission's request, including, at a minimum, records of--
    (i) The number of job applications received from individuals with 
disabilities, and the number of individuals with disabilities who were 
hired by the agency;
    (ii) The number of job applications received from individuals with 
targeted disabilities, and the number of individuals with targeted 
disabilities who were hired by the agency;
    (iii) All rescissions of conditional job offers, demotions, and 
terminations taken against applicants or employees as a result of 
medical examinations or inquiries;
    (iv) All agency employees hired under the Schedule A hiring 
authority for persons with certain disabilities, and each such 
employee's date of hire, entering grade level, probationary status, and 
current grade level;
    (v) The number of employees appointed under the Schedule A hiring 
authority for persons with certain disabilities who have been converted 
to career or career-conditional appointments in the competitive 
service, and the number of such employees who were terminated prior to 
being converted to a career or career-conditional appointment in the 
competitive service; and
    (vi) Details about each request for reasonable accommodation 
including, at a minimum--
    (A) The specific reasonable accommodation requested, if any;
    (B) The job (occupational series, grade level, and agency 
component) sought by the requesting applicant or held by the requesting 
employee;
    (C) Whether the accommodation was needed to apply for a job, 
perform the essential functions of a job, or enjoy the benefits and 
privileges of employment;
    (D) Whether the request was granted (which may include an 
accommodation different from the one requested) or denied;
    (E) The identity of the deciding official;
    (F) If denied, the basis for such denial; and
    (G) The number of days taken to process the request.

[[Page 681]]

    (e) Reporting--(1) Submission to the Commission. On an annual 
basis, each federal agency shall submit to the Commission for approval, 
at such time and in such manner as the Commission deems appropriate--
    (i) A copy of its current Plan;
    (ii) The results of the two most recent workforce analyses 
performed pursuant to paragraph (d)(6) of this section showing the 
percentage of employees with disabilities and employees with targeted 
disabilities in each of the designated pay groups;
    (iii) The number of individuals appointed to positions within the 
agency under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain 
disabilities during the previous year, and the total number of 
employees whose employment at the agency began by appointment under the 
Schedule A hiring authority for persons with certain disabilities; and
    (iv) A list of changes made to the Plan since the prior submission, 
if any, and an explanation of why those changes were made.
    (2) Availability to the public. Each agency shall make the 
information submitted to the Commission pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of 
this section available to the public by, at a minimum, posting a copy 
of the submission on its public Web site and providing a means by which 
members of the public may request copies of the submission in 
accessible formats.
    (f) Commission approval and disapproval--(1) Basis for approval. If 
the Commission determines that an agency has adopted and implemented a 
Plan that meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of this 
section, the Commission shall approve the Plan.
    (2) Basis for disapproval. If the Commission determines that an 
agency has failed to adopt and implement a Plan that meets the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, the Commission 
shall disapprove the Plan as required by 29 U.S.C. 791(b). Failure to 
achieve a goal set forth in paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section, by 
itself, is not grounds for disapproval unless the Plan fails to require 
the agency to take specific steps that are reasonably designed to 
achieve the goal.

0
3. Amend Sec.  1614.601 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1614.601  EEO group statistics.

* * * * *
    (f) Data on disabilities shall be collected using a method 
permitted under Sec.  1614.203(d)(6)(ii) and Sec.  1614.203(d)(6)(iii).
* * * * *

    Dated: December 21, 2016.

    For the Commission.
Peggy R. Mastroianni,
Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2016-31397 Filed 12-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6570-01-P